Show Mobile Navigation
 
History

Top 10 Greatest Firearms in History

While I am not a gun owner, I still find it interesting that guns remain today the most common weapon used by military and civilians alike. During their long history, no one has come up with a suitable and as-popular alternative (such as a ray gun). This list looks at ten of the greatest firearms in history – and in the bonus section poses a question.

10

MG-42

Mjk Mg42 3

“Hitler’s Buzzsaw,” invented in 1942, is infamous around the world as the weapon used at Omaha Beach to mow Americans down, but it was used in Russia to much more brutal effect. It fired 1,200 rounds of 8mm rifle ammunition per minute, which is sufficient to cut a man in half. It was air-cooled, and could melt its barrel if fired non-stop for 5 minutes.

That’s why the Germans had several barrel at hand, and could change to a new one in only 60 seconds.

9

Glock Handgun

Glock-17-03

The Glock is the ultimate in modern reliability. You can pour sand down the barrel and it will shoot. It will shoot underwater. It is commonly used in 9mm, but is chambered for .40 Sig and .45 ACP among others. It is the standard law enforcement sidearm today and will continue to be for a long time. It almost never jams, is waterproof, mostly plastic.


8

.303 Lee-Enfield

303Load

The British equivalent of the German Mauser has one trump on it, a 10 round magazine, compared to 8. The British adopted it into the army in 1895 and used it exclusively until 1957. Soldiers were drilled until they could perform “the mad minute,” firing 30 rounds in 60 seconds and hitting 30 targets. This required reloading twice, and working the bolt back and forth in less than half a second.

The rifle is accurate to 1,000 yards with open sights, and served in India (notoriously used against unarmed civilians), the Boer War, both World Wars, and many others.

7

.50 M2HB “Ma Deuce” BMG

158 5857 Img

The Browning Machine Gun is chambered for the most awe-inspiring shoulder-fired cartridge to date. It is designed with one thing in mind: power tends to corrupt; absolute power is kinda sweet. The 800 grain powder load has 14,895 foot-pounds of energy at the muzzle, which is enough to put a full metal jacketed round through three approaching vehicles. It has shot down helicopters with one round.

Now imagine a belt-fed machine gun spewing a curtain of these rounds at you at 1,200 rounds per minute. Special Sabot rounds can go clean through tanks.


6

Smith and Wesson Model 29 .44 Magnum Revolver

S&W Model 29 Combat 44 Magnum 3

Made famous by Dirty Harry in 1971, it was invented in 1955, and is still thought of as one of the most powerful handguns in the world, though it has been eclipsed by the .500 magnum, the Desert Eagle .50 AE, the .454 Casull and a few others.

But what those other hand cannons lack is controlability and comparatively low cost. The .44 Magnum will still run you at least $800 new, which is a lot for a revolver, but very cheap compared to other magnums. You will not break your wrist shooting it, and yet it can drop Cape Buffaloes and Polar Bears. If I may be afforded one bad joke, it will make your day. Provided that you feel lucky. Punk.

5

The Mauser Model 1893 Bolt Action Rifle

10683

The bolt action had been kicking around since at least 1824, when Paul Mauser and Co. patented the 1893 version in 7mm. It has become the benchmark, on which all bolt action rifles are based, and against which all are compared. There are three primary bolt action systems: the Lee-Enfield, the Mauser, and the Mosin-Nagant.

Of the three, the Mauser system is by far the most widespread, the most reliable, and the most battle-proven rifle mechanism the world has ever seen. The 1893 Mauser was the first, and original models still operate perfectly.


4

Colt Single Action Army Revolver

Colt Model 1873 Single Action Army Cavalry Revolver 44

The icon of the Old West, the Colt .45 revolver was invented in 1873 and immediately caught on as extraordinarily accurate at close range, compared to the ball and cap conversions popular at the time. Its caliber was sufficient to flip a charging man backward off his feet. It can be used today to hunt deer and black bears. The larger powder loads can take down grizzly bears.

It’s as famous as the gun of Wyatt Earp, among other Old West celebrities.

3

Henry Repeating Rifle

Henry-Rifle

The granddaddy of all lever-action firearms. Benjamin Tyler Henry invented it in 1860, but neither the Union nor Confederacy wanted much to do with it, as they were afraid their soldiers would fire too quickly and waste ammunition. If I may use a cliched joke, “military intelligence.” Thank you.

It fired a revolutionary, self-contained cartridge in .44 caliber, with 568 foot-pounds of stopping power, more than enough to put a man down. It held 16 rounds in a tube magazine, and a good man could fire 28 rounds per minute, so much better than 3 per minute with a muzzle-loading percussion cap musket, that if either side had adopted the rifle as standard for infantry, that side would certainly have won.


2

AK-47

643231-Ak-47-2

Accurate enough to do the job out to about 400 yards, which is all anyone usually needs in a battle, the AK-47 is the ultimate pinnacle in rugged reliability. It will not break down under fire unless something catastrophic happens to it. You can drive a tank over it, throw it against a wall, submerge it in sand, water, mud, and every time it will go right on firing when you pull the trigger.

I know a Vietnam veteran who was walking through triple canopy jungle one day in 1966, came across an abandoned AK-47, and couldn’t get the bolt to slide back. It was too corroded from the rain and weather. The wood was rotting off. But he put it butt first on the ground, stomped the action open, and it chambered a round, which he fired accurately at a tree 50 yards away. He stomped the action open again, and it chambered another round, which he fired accurately.

1

Colt 1911 .45 ACP

Dsc02763.Jpg

Every bit as rugged and reliable as the AK-47, this handgun was invented by John Browning for the Colt Company, in 1911, as a sidearm for American soldiers. It immediately proved itself a world beater in WWI, again in WWII, and has been a cornerstone of the American military ever since.

But its most impressive feat has been the ease with which even untrained civilians can fire it accurately, keep it in working order, and defend themselves ably with it. 7 + 1 rounds of fat, man-stopping power perfect for close-range self-defense. Soldiers have dragged it through swamps in the Pacific Theater of WWII, with their fingers on the trigger, then whipped it out of the muck and fired all 8 rounds accurately.

The only way to improve on it would be to make it cheaper. You’ll spend $1,000 on one.

Bonus

A Question

In the United States, everyone has the right to bear arms. As a non-American my question is: is this a fundamental human right which should be extended to all people in the world? Should all Iraqi’s have the right to bear arms? If all Chinese people had the right, would they be living under an oppressive regime today or would they have risen up and put it down?

Listverse Staff

Listverse is a place for explorers. Together we seek out the most fascinating and rare gems of human knowledge. Three or more fact-packed lists daily.

Read More: Twitter Facebook YouTube



  • loop

    What is routinely side-stepped by the NRA and others regarding the second amendment of the U.S. constitution, in my mind, is the phrase, "A well regulated militia". Defense of country and state are fine, unlimited and un-regulated has severe drawbacks.

    • Uguess

      "militia" at the time referred to any man between the ages of 17 and 40something ( I forgot the exact age). These people were encouraged to have their own firearms because they would not be provided to them by any government (federal, state, or otherwise) unless they enlisted and therefore would no longer be a militia. The modern day National Guard is not equivalent to a militia and the framers of the constitution would not have wanted it to be so.

    • Magnumto

      "Militia" STILL refers to all able-bodies males between the ages of 17 and 45:

      (From United States Code)
      TITLE 10 > Subtitle A > PART I > CHAPTER 13 > § 311
      § 311. Militia: composition and classes
      How Current is This?
      (a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
      (b) The classes of the militia are—
      (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
      (2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

      • Magnumto

        Regarding the question (How Current is This) that creeped in to my copy-and-paste:

        "Title 10 of the US Code as currently published by the US Government reflects the laws passed by Congress as of Feb.1, 2010, and it is this version that is published here."

        Source: Cornell University Law School, Legal Information Institute (website)

    • Topher

      The US Constitution states that the entire population is automatically in the militia.

    • JAWSOFFURY

      It is regulated

  • cm

    About the question: WE don't need guns…

    • sperow

      where would america be if we didnt need guns. we would not be america. If i was shooting at you, id bet you would feel pretty fucking needy for a gun then. Fucking Retard

      • Bob

        If nobody had guns, you wouldn’t be able to shoot at him, you fucking retard. The only reason you have guns is to protect yourself from other people with guns. If nobody had guns, there wouldn’t be a problem. And if you’re gonna claim there isn’t a problem, then explain to me why the United States has the highest fatal incidents involving a gun in the world. And to ProChoice, yes the law abiders would be at a disadvantage against people with guns. But one look at the rest of the world would teach you that in countries where guns are illegal, criminals aren’t heavily armed either. For example, I’m not an american, and the only place I have ever seen a gun is on a police officer’s belt.

        • donotknowme

          I have guns to protect myself, or my family, from anything, that is armed or unarmed, that is trying to harm anything I didn’t want it to do harm to. I hope you trust your police enough to use their gun wisely. I do not.

        • Brian

          Hey Bob how many people are knifed to death beaten to death run down. People are the killing factor in all of this. A weapon is a tool just like a hammer. You can build habitat for humanity with a hammer or bash in a persons skull. There is this web site called listverse, if you go there you will see many examples of killers not needing guns to kill. Just their hands and the determination to kill their victims which are usually weaker than the perp such as women or children. ( I will be summarily crucified by NOW because I said women were weaker!) If men did not have erections wouldtheir still be rape? Yes! By instrumentation stick bottle what have you because the crime is not about the sex it is about the control. Criminals are unarmed in prisons yet they stil shank, beat and abuse each other. You really need to wrap your head around what it means to be armed and unarmed. Why does the UK have the highest incidence of traffic accidents invoving cars being driven on the left hand side of the road? That was my stupid question question to counter yours. Being as you are not American you may not ever be able to understand. I mean I dont understand Austrailians but I like them and I dont get mad at the laws they govern themselves by. I have lived in other countries and I happen to like my home country the best. So take care Bob where ever you are and hopefully if you do come to the US you will move to Chicago where they dont like guns either. Noboby has guns there according to the laws of Illinois. Especially the gang members.

        • Ed Buckby

          Bob, here’s the issue. In America, gun ownership is in our Constitution. It would be like going to a Christian and saying “it would be a lovely religion if you could just get rid of a few of the commandments . . . and drop the need to worship”. Gun ownership and all the personal responsibility that comes with it is part of being an American.

          On a practical level, you couldn’t get rid of the guns Americans have even if you could legally come up with a way. You’re talking MILLIONS of guns, and the minute you ban them, South America will start tossing them across the border.

          On a personal level, yes, if NO ONE had guns, no one would get shot. Logically, that’s 100% correct. However, the statement “if NO ONE had guns, NO ONE would break the law or hurt anyone else” is not logical. Guns are fairly new to humanity, and we were killing each other LONG before guns were around.

          What you do when you take away firearms is that you tell the weaker people that they must hope and pray that the government can protect them 24/7 from predators. If someone bigger or tougher comes along, you have no effective way of defending yourself. Kung-fu and pepper spray are not that effective. If they worked well, our military would have them on the front line. Instead, they have guns.

          My wife is small and 120 pounds. She stands no chance with a 200 pound man. She stands ZERO chance with a 150 pound man with a club or a knife. Put a gun in her hand, and she has a fighting chance (actually, better than that as she’s highly trained and, being a woman, has no issues with killing . . . LOL!).

          What people DON’T see is that firearms in the hands of the people STOP crime. Criminals, by nature, are lazy and really don’t like to risk life and limb. They prey on the weak. Arm the “weak”, and the criminals are deterred.

          I ask you to read “More Guns, Less Crime”. It’s an international study by a statistician who set out to prove that gun control will help curb criminal behavior. It’s a REALLY good read, and it’s NOT written by a gun owner or gun pundit. Quite the opposite.

          If you’re not American, I don’t expect you to understand. However, if you’re European, I ask you to do this. Look at the crime statistics (violent crime) between England and France. England, at last look, was much higher. They ban gun ownership by private citizens almost entirely. They even ban the ability to defend oneself in ones home. France, however, allows private ownership without much issue. They have a much lower crime rate. Both countries are VERY similar in many ways. Why so much less crime?

          There’s an old saying a friend of mine from Africa told me. Teach a gazelle to shoot a rifle, and the lions will learn to eat grass.

          • Pedro

            Your African friend is awesome LOL

        • Ed Buckby

          Okay, without getting into the name calling, let me point out an inaccuracy in what you’ve assumed. The reason a person carries a weapon for self-defense is because they believe they may have the need to defend themselves against something. It could be against a criminal with a gun, knife, pipe, or someone who is simply bigger and stronger. While I would hate to be attacked by someone with a gun, I would be no less threatened by someone with a knife or other weapon. Even more so, a small person or woman is probably in even more need for significant ability to defend themselves as they are physically at a disadvantage from a would be attacker. Maybe a 300 pound sumo wrestler carries a gun in case the other guy has a gun, but my 120 pound wife needs a gun to defend herself in almost ANY situation that would most likely happen.

          If you take guns away from EVERYONE, we go back to survival of the fittest or, more to the point, the biggest and strongest.

          As far as America being more violent or dangerous because we can own firearms, if you TRULY look at the statistics, the majority of violent gun crime happens in places where guns are prohibited i.e. many large cities including Washington. They happen where people can’t legally arm themselves but criminals don’t have to follow such laws.

          I’m glad that you feel safe because only the police have guns there. On the other hand, what would you do IF 2 or 3 large people broke into your house with the intent of hurting you. Do you have any options better than HOPING the police can be notified and can arrive BEFORE they hurt you? To me, I want a better option.

          One of my shooting buddies said it pretty well. The only thing more frightening than everyone having a gun is everyone ELSE having a gun.

        • JAWS OF FURY

          sorry to tell you but people that would use a gun on you don’t give a damn about what your philosophy is, also if we didn’t have gun, every one would own lots and lots of knifes

  • apepper

    I just spotted the question; from the UK the US model seems jolly odd. We had a school shooting where 16 children were shot by one man with a legally held gun. It seemed obvious to simply ban privately held guns, which is largely what happened in the UK. The alternative was to love our guns more than our children.

    • Dan

      And, with all due respect, I'm pretty sure handgun crimes went UP after the ban.

    • JPG

      Love your children enough to defend them.

      • Tom

        Gun deaths per 100,000 population (for the year indicated):

        Homicide Suicide Other (inc Accident)

        USA (2001) 3.98 5.92 0.36
        Italy (1997) 0.81 1.1 0.07
        Switzerland (1998) 0.50 5.8 0.10
        Canada (2002) 0.4 2.0 0.04
        Finland (2003) 0.35 4.45 0.10
        Australia (2001) 0.24 1.34 0.10
        France (2001) 0.21 3.4 0.49
        England/Wales (2002) 0.15 0.2 0.03
        Scotland (2002) 0.06 0.2 0.02
        Japan (2002) 0.02 0.04 0

        Data taken from Cukier and Sidel (2006) The Global Gun Epidemic. Praeger Security International. Westport.

        Frightening stats – I think the issues is that with guns so readily available you should think about protecting your children from themselves.

        • Bob

          If that’s what’s happening JPG, the united states must really fucking hate their children.

          • Arch9enius

            Worth noting someone went on a stabbing rampage in a UK infants school about the same time. Not as many deaths, obviously. Of course its PEOPLE that cause these things, with whatever they can get hold of, but what if he had got hold of an assault rifle, 2 day cooling off period then no questions asked? He’dve done the whole frikkin town.

        • KEvin

          Note in Switzerland each male of age has a government issued assault rifle.

        • StanO

          It used to be the case that every Swiss male has a rifle and has been in the Army. So why the discrepancy between Switzerland and the US?

  • Jorick

    The "right" to bear arms is a foolish one that would be abolished already if not for the NRA. The US Constitution says that we have the right to bear arms ONLY because of the need of a militia. That's what the National Guard is. Only them and and law enforcement should have guns, and both only during active duty.

    It would be a bad thing for this "right" to be spread about. Look at how many people are killed every day by guns in the US. If China's population had a similar percentage of gun ownership, it's likely there would be tens of thousands of gun deaths a day. Sure it would be good for relieving overpopulation, but I don't think many people advocate such action. It's moronic and should be done away with.

    • dan

      the nat. guard is in no way a militia

    • Magnumto

      Mumbai, India, Nov. 2008. At least 44 people killed and 150 injured. Although India has very strict gun ownership laws, that didn't stop people from being shot like fish in a barrel.

      You can keep your foolish belief that outlawing guns means noone will have them – in fact, use that belief to protect yourself should the need ever arise.

      • Constitutionally Armed Defender

        ask yourself, how many of those people would have died, if even a quarter of them had been lawfully armed themselves, and capable of defending themselves against the gunmen doing the slaying?

        • Arch9enius

          Well for a start, it depends on whether a quarter of those bystanders could actually shoot straight… Esp. while being shot at themselves,

      • Pankaj

        guys, about mumbai, in 2008, that was a terrorist attack….not a civilian using guns….

    • morgan painter

      The constitution clearly states, "the right of the PEOPLE"…..
      The standing army and the national guard are and will always be under the control of the government. If the people are unable to defend themselves, the people in government who would LIKE to be in total control will become bolder and just might become dictatorial. Just look at the arrogance of people in government now and imagine how overbearing they might be if they had no reason to fear the public. As a former soldier, I hate what guns can do to people but I also know what governments do to an unarmed population. Besides, criminals never turn their guns in if they are banned. They prefer an unarmed victim.

    • AJ

      When seconds count? Police are only minutes away.

      That line about militia has been bantered about and misinterpreted since the document was written. To the Founding Fathers every able bodied American male was the militia, and the intent was to keep power in the hands of the people.

    • Mitch

      To quote the constitution “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed” that means for those of you who failed 6th grade that anyone who is a citizen of the U.S can own and carry any wepon.
      And on the subject of minor (also for those who failed 6th grade minor means anyone under 18) suicide if they want to kill them selves they will find another way. The only way to stop gun violence would to destroy every gun in the world kill everyone who knows how to make one destroy all blueprints of them and after all that every one that has a basic under standing of physics (me included) would be dead and in ten years the 12 year olds that grew up without parents would figure out how to make guns.
      Also a armed population makes a nation stronger no one could invade the Midwest there would be a militia in every town.
      P.S I am 15 years old I have shot many guns (shotguns handguns rifles battle rifles) I am also American. And if you tried to take my gun you would have to dig up 80 acres of land.

  • Jeremy

    The only answer to the question… try invading America and see how far you get! If everyone in Iraq had a gun maybe there wouldn't be 150,000 American soldiers there!

    • Arch9enius

      Everyone in Iraq DID have guns. Saddam handed them out FOC so the Americans would feel right at home..

    • Da Cuntstabber

      It would be interesting to see if those armed citizens don’t turn out useless in a war

  • random guy

    it would be great if we didnt need guns. however the simple fact is–we do. if civilians arnt allowed to get guns, it wont stop criminals from getting them, and using them on the now-defenseless.

    • Ali

      Any people aneryhwe, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up, and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable a most sacred right a right, which we hope and believe, is to liberate the world.We are asking the nations of Europe between whom rivers of blood have flowed to forget the feuds of a thousand years.

  • good one … :) quite interesting too

  • gr8flddfn

    what about the tommy gun?

  • apepper

    Not sure “great” is a good description for firearms.

    • Even if you don't like guns, the word "great" has no moral connotations, you could describe something as being "great and terrible." You can't deny that there are a lot of weapons out there that are very impressive and this is where their greatness lies.

  • kukz

    what about shotgun?

  • Borat

    Why no M4 Carbine?

  • stefan

    awesome list !!!

  • captain funtime

    guns are bad mmkay, theres no need for them, why cant battles go back to ‘the best survive’? now a spotty little freak can go into a school and mow down 20+ people without breaking a sweat, replace that gun with a sword and see how far they get.

    saying that, i am going shooting at the end of the month, should be fun :D

    • ProChoice

      If they banned guns in wars, people would still use them anyway, and putting the "law-abiders" at a disadvantage. Plus people would probably just use more chemical and biological weapons… But I guess that is going to happen sooner or later anyway.

  • Ness

    I don’t think people need the ‘right’ to bear arms, most people don’t have a need for it, it makes no difference if they have the right to a gun or not, they just don’t want, need or would use one. I’m from Australia and we don’t have that right here, it’s not even an issue, it’s never really thought about. Introducing a right like that into a country where most of the people are uneducated about and have no need for guns would just create more problems than it’s worth.

    • Dusty

      The definitive information I have found says that since Australia (and Scotland) took away the right of law-abiding persons to have guns, the gun related crimes and overall crime rate in those nations caused by persons who do not care about the restrictions on guns or most other laws has skyrocketed.

    • Jerry

      Remember when seconds count and your life or your families lives are in danger the cops are only minutes away! Personally I'll stick to my keeping my Ar15 by my bed loaded with a 30 round clip that way I wont have to worry about getting a busy signal when I call the cops.

  • Anthony D. Lara

    This was a very interesting list i myself own a Glock and i am suprised it made the list.

  • Ness

    wouldn’t* (use one)

  • Richard Austin

    This list has to include the Garand M1 rifle, the extraordinary weapon of GI’s in WWII. Talk about taking a beating and keeping on ticking. Also, given its global application to match that of the AK47, you have to mention the M16A1. Lastly, the most influencial special ops weapon for decades, the Heckler and Koch MP5, absolutely deserves inclusion.

    • Anton

      The reason I think any of the M16 variants made the list is because it's basically a pretty bad firearm, over-complicated mechanism and maintinence high. Take only the lever to push in the mechanism properly, something that shouldn't be needed on a modern firearm but exists on the m16a2 to use when grime and gunpowder residue builds up within that delicate and complicated mechanism.

  • Ny

    I don’t like guns.

  • AT

    This is my kind of list. I believe gaitling should be included though.

  • Ms Scarlett

    I was under the impression that the “right” to bear arms in the US is debatable and depends on how you interpret the wording of the consitution.

    Speaking as a resident of the UK, I think frankly that the American system is insane and I would hate to live in a country where so many people are armed. It’s certainly no coincidence that murder rates are so much higher in the US than here. And aren’t you much more likely to accidentally shoot yourself or a member of your family than an intruder? Personally I’d rather be burgled and have all my stuff stolen (which is only stuff at the end of the day) than take even an infinitesimally small chance of shooting myself or someone I love.

    So no I don’t think it is a fundamental right and, as your question seems to imply, Americans seem much keener on arming themselves than extending that so called right to other people. I think the right not to be shot trumps the right to bear arms every time.

    • Paul

      The UK is the size and population of my home state of Illinois and, according to the World Health Organization, the UK has twice the robbery rate and twice the violent crime (battery resulting in hospitalization) rate of my whole country. Also according to the WHO, US isn't even in the top 10 of murder rates per 1,000. Russia has no guns and twice the total US murder rate, Japan has the record for largest mass murder. The US is only allowed guns based on the state laws and only then after to rebel against our own government.

    • bill mckay

      Guns dont kill people. People kill people. What if someone broke into your house not to rob you but to rape plunder and pillage your children and wife bet you would wish you had a gun then. So yeah lets ban the legeal law abiding citizens from the right to bear arms so the only people left with guns are criminals and peace officers

      • redwolfblack

        rape and plunder? we have vikings now? goddamit!

        • Liam

          Lol

    • Yes Man

      One would think not to aim a gun at one of their family members or their own head. Plus guns are better used as a bluff than a weapon in a crime situation

    • Twang

      You seem to forget that America is the most diverse nation in the world. All different kinds of people, different beliefs, different personalities. If you consider the violent nature of man, it’s obvious that the reason homicide rates in the US are so high isn’t because we have guns, but because we all fucking hate each other.

  • GunFreaks!

    Nice list, but I think AK-47 should be number 1. It change modern warfare forever.

    • Magnumto

      Although I love my 1911's, both of them, I have to agree with you. The AK-47 is super cheap, dependable, and so easy to shoot and maintain that the most undeducated, ignorant, tribal farmer in any third world cesspool can do it. (And I mean "ignorant" in the strict literal sense, not in a derogatory way.) That gun has revolutionized warfare modern more than any other, IMO.

      But if it DID have to be #2, I'm glad it was bumped by the 1911. And BTW, brand new 1911's can be had for around $500 – Springfield, Rock Island, etc. Kimbers are around $1,000, though.

    • I think that the design was inspired by a German assault rifle that was never put into mass production though, so you may say that the German's changed warfare forever…

      • You are very right the German made the wunderweapon the STG-44 and it was not mass produced because of the end of the war. If it mass produced at the beginning of the war it could of changed drastically. The Russians and Mikhail Kalashnikov pretty much just copied the design and made it their own.

  • Sin

    Great list! Next list, please add the M-16, M-82 and CZ-75 and/or the Desert Eagle.

  • Smurf

    Right to arms? Where does it stop? I’ll have a nuclear missile then please – covered by my right to arms. The american policy is rubbish.

  • Del Davis

    This list totally reminded me one of the reason I got hooked on this site, besides the great and random lists.
    One commenter always got me laughin, but he has been absent for a while.
    So, in honor of JAJDUDE, I will finish my comment in this style …

    Straight guns on the list g. people with guns are the only reason I get any exercise walking down dimly lit streets yo.

    jajdude… we miss you.

  • archiealt

    Fairly well written list. Although has somebody has already pointed out i’m not sure we should rate guns on their ‘greatness’.

    When it comes to the question, i really don’t think it needs discussion. Of course people shouldn’t have the right to ‘bear arms’. It’s a ludicrous notion and you guys across the water really need to give it up as soon as possible.
    And while we’re at it, it’s 2009 people, can you please do away with the death penalty.

    • alax

      so if some one murders another person what would you rather have happen

      personally if you murder someone i think you deserve to be killed

      and anyway to understand the right to keep and bear arms you need to understand the early history and constitution of America

      to quote Talanic :

      "The right to bear arms was made a part of law in a time when there were three primary concerns.

      The first was self-defense; after all, America just wasn't safe for the common person at the time.

      The second was defense of the country. The USA was never actually supposed to have a standing army; citizens were supposed to be trained with guns and capable of forming a militia in a few scant months – as soon as we heard of an invasion force coming overseas. Times change; I have to say a standing army seems pretty essential today, if only for cleanup of our own messes 8(

      The third is only implied, but it's a doozy. It's so that, if the US government started going entirely bad and oppressing the populace, they would be capable of overthrowing a despot. It's really debatable about whether or not that was officially part of the reason why we have the right to bear arms, but it's so obvious that it'd be hard to argue that the founding fathers never thought of it."

      today militia has been replaced by the National Guard

      personally i would rather have a gun and never need it than need a gun and not have one

      remember guns dont kill people, people kill people; we did it long before guns

  • Rufus

    i’m a chinese (hong kong) and i wouldn’t want chinese civilians to bear arms. mostly because the average morale and conduct level in china is pretty low, who knows what people will do when they have guns…

    i hate the chinese government anyhow

  • CptAhab

    Guns are never “great” they are fuggn deadly.

  • Talanic

    The right to bear arms was made a part of law in a time when there were three primary concerns.

    The first was self-defense; after all, America just wasn’t safe for the common person at the time.

    The second was defense of the country. The USA was never actually supposed to have a standing army; citizens were supposed to be trained with guns and capable of forming a militia in a few scant months – as soon as we heard of an invasion force coming overseas. Times change; I have to say a standing army seems pretty essential today, if only for cleanup of our own messes 8(

    The third is only implied, but it’s a doozy. It’s so that, if the US government started going entirely bad and oppressing the populace, they would be capable of overthrowing a despot. It’s really debatable about whether or not that was officially part of the reason why we have the right to bear arms, but it’s so obvious that it’d be hard to argue that the founding fathers never thought of it.

    As far as, should other people? During a pacification, I’d have to say that certain limits should be imposed on people who haven’t proven themselves to be friendly or neutral, but I’m darned if I know what that would really entail. After an area is considered to be free of active hostiles, it’d be awfully hypocritical of us to mandate the area as a gun-free zone with our own soldiers flaunting their arms – but those same soldiers are going to be a lot more likely to fire if they know that everyone in the area is likely to be packing. In short, I have no good answer for you; I’d prefer that we be able to clean out those who are an active threat such that the people of Iraq and other occupied territories don’t NEED guns, but I know how naive that kind of thinking is.

    • Sam

      So you want to make it so that people in Iraq don't need guns, while pointing out how important it is for the populace to own firearms for the three reasons given, particularly 2 and 3, which are about preventing a country from being occupied by an invading force.

  • galactus

    – “I still find it interesting that guns remain today the most common weapon used by military and civilians alike.”

    As opposed to what, bow and arrows? :D

  • Talanic

    I don’t own guns. I don’t hunt or target shoot, and I don’t live in an area where I feel I need a firearm to defend myself. And yet I must disagree about the abolishment of guns.

    The militia that the constitution speaks of is not necessarily one under the control of the government itself, as the National Guard is.

    Jorick (27), all you say is that it should be abolished, but nothing of WHY. I know many people die in gun accidents, and guns are used in crimes. Does someone else’s accident give a second person the right to restrict a third person from responsibly owning the object that the first person was hurt or killed by? It is a very dangerous precedent to set.

    Guns don’t cause crime. They may cause crime to be more severe but they do not, in and of themselves, cause crime. Instead, discontent is what causes crime. People break the law when there are things that they want that they can’t get. The worst thing, the thing that causes crime to be widespread, is lack of opportunity for personal improvement.

    Want to see crime drop? Fund the police more and spend more on education.

  • nuriko

    no to guns…

  • Kusk

    Great list, could have been better with 20 items.

    I myself use an H&K USP 9mm Compact, 13 rounds(one extra in camber). And for tactical operations i use the H&K MP5A3 9mm.

    The MP5 is unbelievable easy to shot well. It simply hits what you point it at, and there is almost no recoil.

    • Jimbo

      +1 for HK. I understand the inclusion of the Glock, simply because it’s in that middle ground between high quality and universal distribution. At the extreme ends of that scale, though, I’d say the Beretta M92F has had more effect, do to its extensive use in the military, and the HK USP (or the SOCOM spec Mk23 Mod 0) is more noteworthy because it’s superior to both in every way, though this comes with a slightly steeper price tag (still less than a 1911). Those lines about the Glock performing admirably with sand in the barrel or underwater sound like they were lifted right from Tommy Lee Jones in US Marshals – just do a quick google search on how much testing was done on the USP and shooting underwater sounds like child’s play…

  • Great list! I have been regularly using all of these. And i have also died 583 times using them… and still counting…right now its war in call of duty 5! yaaaaah!

  • Flippy

    My M16, what about the M16?

  • I always prefer the Thompson fully automatic to blow off nazi heads. Great gun,great looks too…

  • Schmick

    Guns don’t kill people..

    It’s the bullets!!

  • Doesn’t ‘nyone play games in here???gnaaaah!

  • Well have to admit that i hadn’t heard of any except the
    Ak-47 …and i came to know about many others only after playing counter strike..heh heh

  • @Schmick, its neither the guns ,nor the bullets,man. Its man,man.

  • God

    Moron.

  • As for the question about the right to bear firearms,that right should be rightaway abolished from everyone..else people’ll start shooting each other on the frivolous of matters..and as for rebelling against a particular oppressive regime,i don’t think there will be an equality of firepower between the people and the government..so there you are

  • Schmick

    @ buclism, lighten up..

    or i’ll shoot ya!!

  • Which is the most popular gun in the history of fps,third person shooters etc etc?? the shotgun! It shoulda been mentioned as pseudo-honorary

  • Schmick

    with a bullet ;)

  • Good list, that is badly spoiled by putting the AK as number 2.

    No single gun has had the impact on this planet. For better or Worse.

  • gimpy

    What about the M1 or M14, or the Maxim Gun? The Glock, really? Two many pistols in the list. Rifles and machine guns are much more historically significant

  • i forsaw the future…that’s why i wrote ‘man,man’!

  • Fallenknight

    Actually, the right to bear arms was included in the Iraqi constitution.
    As far as the “Militia” part of our own Second Amendment goes, I signed up for Selective Service when I turned 18, as did millions of other men in the US. That means I have been part of a national militia since then, so where’s my selective-fire weapon & free ammo?
    The right to defend oneself from harm should be a Universal Human Right, guns just make it easy for a 100 pound woman to defend herself against a 200 pound man. And here in America, civilian-owned firearms are used to prevent some hundreds of thousands of violent crimes every year, according to the FBI. The only reason you never hear about them is they never make the “news.”
    All you folks in the UK & Australia did have the right to own firearms at one time, but according to the W.H.O., violent crime has increased in your countries, and your per-capita murder rate is actually higher than the US.
    I would rather die as a wolf than live as a sheep.

    • Alan

      They won't listen, don't waste your breath.

      Interpol, the FBI, every major law enforcement agency in the world has released studies that all support the same thing. In areas where it is legal for citizens to own guns, violent crime levels have dropped.
      Period.

      What people CAN'T SEEM TO UNDERSTAND, or REFUSE to understand, despite reams and reams of data and anecdotal evidence to the contrary, is that when you make citizen gun ownership illegal, law-abiding citizens turn in their guns. The criminals retain theirs. You have successfully disarmed all law-abiding/good people, and made them completely defenseless.

      Fun fact, the vast majority of gun-related mass deaths are in "Gun Free Zones".(I.E. Schools, shopping malls, government facilities, etc.) Psychologists and experts have postulated that this is because the criminal KNOWS that no one there will be able to defend themselves, and they will be much more effective.

      An Armed society is a polite society.
      Look at ACTUAL crime statistics from the American West. Don't watch the movies or believe the hype, look at the real numbers. The majority of citizens carried guns, and crime was insanely low. I'm talking less than 10 murders in 10 years for most towns/cities.
      Now look at Chicago and Washington D.C., The two largest cities in the United States that have outlawed guns. (Recently fixed I know)
      Gun crime, violent crime, rape, murder. All through the roof in these cities. Again, because no one can defend themselves.

      The numbers show the truth. The experts support the truth. Experienced Law Enforcement Officers will tell you the exact same thing.
      Private Gun Ownership SAVES lives.
      There exists no decision as to whether or not being able to protect yourself and your family is a right.
      There is no decision in regards to whether guns in law-abiding citizens hands prevents crime.
      Simple Fact: It does.

      The question is whether people want to admit it, or whether they will continue to believe the indoctrination their media, government, and coddling culture has forced on them.

      Unfortunately, most people would rather dismiss the truth than step out of their safety bubble…

  • Anderi

    Funny, but the chinese don’t see their regime as oppressive. Not now. Only the Americans do. Time to move on and accept that a powerful communist nation still exists…

    • ron

      they dont see regime oppesive because they cant!

  • Jeremy

    ohh, and about the list. It was ok, but what about the BAR? once you where out of ammo you could beat the crap out of anyone you meet and still use the gun when you got more ammo. and it is far more reliable then the AK! all around the best combat riffle ever made, next would be the British 303, which was on the list.

  • Bearglove

    I agree with Talanic, mainly on the third point. The implication in our Constitution of the right to bear arms is not necessarily a means of overthrowing a despot, but of depending ourselves against a despot who did raise a standing army and tried to use said military to seize the property of American citizens.
    On a personal level I hate guns. I have no interest in owning one. However, I am proficient enough in the use of a rifle that if necessary I could defend myself. I also don’t think any one else should have guns taken away from them. Sure there are higher murder rates here, but making guns illegal isn’t going to stop that, it just means that the guns used to kill people will be unregistered and harder to trace.

  • braaaap

    Guns dont kill people rappers do

  • deepthinker

    It’s probably a good thing we Americans can still bear arms… everyone else hates us. I really don’t like guns, and there are some people in this country that should not have the right to them.

  • fuck no

    keep your fucking red neck guns

  • Asimonsays243

    Good list. I personally own 5 (yes 5 dont ask long story) of the number one gun on your list. I have a concealed firearms permit and carry a 1911 variant all the time. You can get one for less than 1,000 dollars, actually there are several variants of the 1911 for between 500 and 750 dollars. As far as the right to keep and bear arms, yes that should be something that all people should have the right to. Whether it would have changed things in oppressed countries, one will never know. As for all of you that commented on this list that guns kill people, get over it people kill people. I leave a S&W Model 66 loaded in my desk drawer all the time and it has never killed anyone, and never will kill anyone WITHOUT direct human interaction. Oh and Jeremy, Ive been to Iraq twice and if you only knew how many people there do own guns(legally or not)you would be amazed. As for the comments on the M4/M16 variant, yeah right, they arent that that good of a gun. No where near as capable of a battle rifle as say the AK47, G36, L85(SA80), the FN FAL, or the Tavor TAR21.

  • Blue Velvet

    Anderi: “Funny, but the chinese don’t see their regime as oppressive. Not now. Only the Americans do. Time to move on and accept that a powerful communist nation still exists…”

    A nation whose government slaughters hundreds of thousands of people a year, which sanctions torture and which holds public executions. Wonderful stuff.

    Over 35,000 people are shot dead in America each year and this figure just keeps on rising. Yet the spoilt children refuse to give up their toys. Most shit themselves if you even mention increased regulation.
    I’m happy to live in a country where I can walk down any street and know I’m not going to get shot by some redneck.

    P.S. to all the people saying “what about the shotgun”… y’alls are fucking retarded.

  • Wingnut

    !) Yes, it is a human right. Why? Self defense is a human right, and the decision to bear arms in ones defense is covered by that right.

    @) You forgot the M1 Garand.

  • Jeff

    so why did this list turn into a bunch of people talking about the right to arms lol

    if you dont like them dont own one, its that simple, its not a religion so dont preach it and yea that goes on both sides gun owners and anti-gun people.

  • totalstranger

    M-60

  • GiantFlyingRobo

    Knew the Ma Deuce would be on this list! But what about the UZI? Okay that’s probably the 11th best.

  • Army Combat Vet

    Yes, we as Americans have the right to bear arms. We also have more homocides by guns than any other country. According to the Department of Justice, 75% of American homocides are committed by firearms.

    As stated above, people read that right the way they want to read it, not the way it it written.

    Not everybody needs a gun, a point Americans prove everyday.

    • paul

      The World Health Organization doesn't even list US in the Top 10 in Homocides.

  • elbobbo

    “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. ”

    As many people have already mentioned the right to bare arms is an antiquated idea. It was written in a time when a standing militia was the only real defense from invaders, angry natives or, for pioneers, wild animals most people had. Today a volunteer militia that can be ready to fight at a moment’s notice is no longer necessary.

  • @bluevelvet: are you some authority in the matter of firearms? What’s ur grouse against the shotgun?
    @jeff: the comments turned into a discussion about the right to arms coz it was asked to be discussed..see end of list.

  • FREE MAN

    An armed man is a citizen. An unarmed man is a subject.

    When you remove the people’s right to bear arms, you create slaves.

    Free men do not ask permission to bear arms.

    Only a government that is afraid of it’s citizens tries to control them.

    The American Revolution would never have happened with Gun Control.

    If you don’t know your rights you don’t have any.

    Those who trade liberty for security have neither.

    The United States Constitution © 1791 by “We, The People”. All Rights Reserved.

    “…a government by the people, for the people…”

    The Second Amendment is in place in case they ignore the others.

    Know guns, know peace and safety. No guns, no peace nor safety.

    You only have the rights you are willing to fight for.

    A gun in the hand is better than a cop on the phone.

    You don’t shoot to kill; you shoot to stay alive.

    911 – government sponsored Dial a Prayer.

    Criminals love gun control – it makes their jobs safer.

  • Steve

    Short version: A handgun saved the life of my wife and children. That’s why I am taking your majority opinion and flushing it down the crapper.

    There it goes, and I feel pretty good about it.

  • Sean

    You Aussies and English are a hoot. What you don’t know about guns, the militia, and rights would fill the ocean. Suffice it to say, What bunch were you a part of in WW2? the side whose ass we kicked, or the side whose ass we saved? Your pathetic little dime store countries are overun with crime, parasites, Moslem scum, and no- nothing socialist politically correct slobs. You can’t police your own streets, and if the Chinese come calling, or some other murdering gang, you’re finished. I’ll keep my guns, thank you. Owning a gun is the difference between a free man, and a slave. Good luck, slaves.

  • Jeff

    @geronimo1680 missed the bonus part, thanks

  • Eyeswideshut

    I have heard quite a few Americans calling out Muslims for blindly following a 1300+ year old edict. They are however OK to blindly follow the 2nd Amendment that was passed 218 years ago. How long ago did the American law makers spend time analyzing if the various laws passed in the Congress are relevant to the current time?

    To the supporters of gun rights: Don’t try and pass America as some violent african country. 95%+ of Americans don’t have a need to bear arms. That’s the simple fact. When was the last time you heard chinese kid shooting classmates with a legal-permit weapon? How many incidents of gun violence in schools have you heard in the developed country?

    • Magnumto

      Eyeswideshut: Which 5% DO need guns? If you can pick them out, then you're like a god or something, and I would love to KNOW that I'll never need one.

      BTW, cool screen name. Appropriate.

  • Blazer383

    I personally am partial to the AR-15 over the AK; better quality of material, much more accurate. The AK wins hands down in terms of reliability though, and that is more important than anything on the field of battle.

    I’m very pleased to see the 1911 at the top of the list; they are a hot commodity amongst US servicemen, who much prefer them over the Beretta 92’s that have been standard issue since the 1980’s. Most LEO’s that I know would prefer a 1911 for carry duty, but legal issues prevent rank and file cops from carrying a single action pistol nowadays. Definitely says something about the quality of design for a gun to have such a following after a hundred years.

    As to the Second Amendment: the wording has been causing confusion since it was written, but the intent is clear based on writings by Jefferson and other of our founding fathers; and that intent is to be able to protect ourselves against tyranny, whether from other citizens or from our own government. And given the way the USA has been hijacked by corporate greed, we may be very glad for the foresight of visionaries like Jefferson before it’s all said and done.

    If you don’t like guns, then don’t own one. Plain and simple. Like another commenter opined earlier, “I’d rather die like a wolf than live like a sheep”. I’m hearing an awful lot of “Baaaa-Baaaa” on here today.

  • Ness

    Sean, it is ignorant people like you that the Aussies and English feel sorry for.

  • rain

    MG-42 FTW! Most badass guns if WW2.
    But why no M-16 or M-21?

  • @sean: Racist-bigoted-communal idiots like you can never contribute positively to the society..may u b consumed by ur inflammatory vitriol

  • Pat

    Question to those who hate guns and would never own one

    (yes I know the odds are astronomical, but so is getting struck by lightning, and one man has been struck 7 times.)

    3 fully grown, above average strength men break into your house at night and intend on kidnapping you or your wife or child or whatever, it’s too late to call the cops, you have no gun, just a baseball bat, how do you plan on fending them off?

  • archangel

    Nice nice list! I’d be darned to see though if Chinese had a right to bear arms. That’s 1 billion people with the potential to shoot each other… not stereotyping but there are lot more males in China!! And they’re not very happy males (due to lack of women)!!

  • ianz09

    FlameHorse, excellent list! You are awfully busy contributing anymore, huh? But you are doing a good job, keep it up!

  • ianz09

    @Sean (67): TO ALL USERS OUTSIDE OF AMERICA I would like to start by saying that this man is an idiot. I would like to further state that as an American, I am ashamed to be represented as such and I apologize that idiots like this have logged onto a computer. Thank you.

  • HandyMandy

    I believe they should regulate guns, take them away from the criminals, not the responsible citizens. WE pay for permits, hunting-concealed carry, whatever. Take them away from the criminals before you start harassing the responsible ones. I agree with more funding for the police and education.

  • General Tits Von Chodehoffen

    Nice list. These comments should be epic. While I’m not against gun ownership, cops should try to get the unregistered guns off the streets. I went to an inner city high school and lots of kids have guns. Just something to think about.

  • General Tits Von Chodehoffen

    @HandyMandy (78): Absolutely

  • Sean

    Ignorant? Whatever you say. But who is it that trembles when the yobs start tearing down your door, and who is it that waits to give them their just desserts? And Eyeswideshut? You’re a pathetic liar, and you’re confused as well. Since we have rights here, we don’t have to refer to “needs”. And I’ve never blindly followed the Second Amendment. But I have fought, and killed for it, and every other right I have. Slave. If the English and Aussies feel sorry for me, I’m laughing at their undefended, slave, “life”. But I’m sure you’re very happy, and very, very, vulnerable.

  • GodGunsGuts

    An armed society is a polite society.

  • Moloch1123

    Sorry, had to stop and clean myself up after reading number seven. *drools*

    @FREE MAN (65): THANK YOU! I have always personally believed in the right to bear arms, even though it was only recently that I felt the need to purchase any; mainly so that my wife could protect herself when I’m away at work, guarding the low-life degenerates who couldn’t behave in a free society.

    @Steve (66): My personal preference is a Smith & Wesson M & P .45 cal. loaded with hydroshocks. One shot = one kill, even with a glancing shot. So, if you don’t mind me asking, what did you or your wife use? I’m asking because my wife is kind of small of build, and I want something she can fire reliably for her protection, and so far, about the best we can do is a .22 or a .380.

    • Dusty

      Try a shotgun. Slide action. Up close a 20 ga with bird shot wil do fine. Some are available that have relatively short barrels and even folding stocks. Or put a recoil absorbing pad on the butt. Consider a 357 revolver with a 4 inch barrel and fire 38 special ammo. Be very careful: pratice shooting at a range can become addictive. Then you get into reloading and start trying out all the possibilities of that big cartridge? Also, the environment at that range: The nicest, politest people I have ever met were all carrying guns.

  • Banana

    @pat, I would much rather have locked doors and windows and feel secure from that than own a gun. The chances of that scenario actually happening are slim, and even if it did happen, I would not be thinking “Gee, I wish I had a gun right now”.
    Gun ownership does not equal invincibility, nor does it mean that everything in a bad situation will go your way.
    I have been attacked/mugged by two larger than average sized men, and I was not thinking about hurting them, I was thinking about escape!

  • Moloch1123

    Well, there’s a glitch, I think. I wasn’t done yet!

    Oh well, let it be known that I will fight for my freedoms, and I will not lie down and die peacefully for any enemy!

    Excellent list, Flamehorse. Keep them coming!

  • b2tharad

    If guns are outlawed, only the outlaws will have guns.

  • damien_karras

    @Steve (66): Well said, brother. Yes, the police are put in place to enforce laws in the US and to protect society as a whole. Unfortunately, all too often they provide this service after the damage has already been done. The cops aren’t mind readers. This isn’t “Minority Report”. I’d rather have a gun on hand when someone does break into my home, rather than be hiding under the bed frantically talking to an idiot 911 dispatch officer giving my address and waiting for the bad guy to go away.

  • Moloch1123

    Also, I was just reminded of a quote from a friend:

    “You know why people today act like such sh**heads, instead of like civilized people with manners like they used to a couple hundred years ago? It’s because they know that nowadays they don’t have to worry about someone smashing their skull in or shooting them to death for being an idiot or for being rude.”

    Finally, One from me: “Guns don’t kill people, Darwinism kills people.”

  • HandyMandy

    Thank you FREE MAN.

  • Sean

    ianz09, you don’t have to apologize to me, but thanks anyway. Oh, and the reason you can spout off like the little girl you are is because men like me made sure you had the freedom to do so. Tell me, sport, what’s your service record? Or is 4F too high to count?

  • old_skool

    6,750,000 guns killed no one yesterday

    as for saving lives or preventing crime, well, heres just a few cases

    http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum60/

    it is my right to defend myself and my family by any means required. i hope to god i will never be put into a situation where i have to act, but i am prepaired to if need be. i know that my intentions are good, but not everyone’s is.

    and before someone feels like calling be a gun crazy redneck, im a well educated doctor in a city, not a southern hick.

  • bob

    Sean, it is folly to bring up WW2, it is highly probable that WW2 could have ended without America fully engaging in the war. To what extent and how long it would take to end is still in question, but Hitler’s reign on Europe was in the decline when America entered the war to liberate Europe. London got a few bombs, that doesn’t mean we “saved” them. We saved the French, but England was doing fine with just our money/resource we gave.

  • oouchan

    Interesting list. I don’t like guns and have never shot one nor do I think I could under normal circumstances. However, knowing that I have that right…just in case…makes it a little easier to sleep at night.
    If you take away guns from the citizens…who will take it away from the criminals? Do you really think they will just give it up simply because we outlawed it? Hellooooo….they are criminals for a reason!
    I’m not sponsoring owning guns, but I feel that I should be realistic.

    @Pat (74): Of course I would grab the gun. No thought process needed.

    @FREE MAN (65): I like that post.

  • @sean 81: Now listen to me you idiot,Americans were under british rule,they gained independence much later(no offence to other americans) therefore that makes a specific fool like you a slave..watsay ‘slave’?

  • Randall

    @b2tharad (86):

    Way to cough up a moronic cliche to help out the debate there, butthead.

  • ianz09

    @Sean (81): Again, this man does not represent me or many other Americans, and I am sorry.

  • Panda

    @Sean, no one is disputing the military’s right to guns! You’re confusing yourself.
    People also have the right to choose what they do with their life without facing ridicule; whether that be service or not, or owning a gun or not. That’s another freedom those men fought for, isn’t it?

  • Moloch1123

    @Banana (84): Actually, Bananna, that scenario does happen here in America. It’s called a “Home Invasion”. God have mercy on the morons who come into my home with mischief on their minds, because then I’ll have blood on my hands. Even if all I have is my bare hands.

    And no, I own no handgun as of yet, and it wouldn’t matter. I have the training, and the psycho-emotional capacity for much mayhem, not to mention the physical part of it. But how many people are that fortunate? Some of you NEED an equalizer.

    @Sean (81): THANK YOU!

    To those who have mentioned taking illicit firearms off of the streets of America – The cops try, but idiot politicians tie their hands time and again. We didn’t have a crime problem until criminals had rights. You want to get rid of crime, get rid of the criminal’s rights. They’re not going to behave any better after a stint in prison than they did before prison, and if anythign it just makes them better at being a criminal.

  • archangel

    74 Pat.

    Very good question Pat. My personal opinion would be to say that if guns weren’t a right in the first place, then these attackers wouldn’t have a gun to begin with. The scenario you are talking about would thus prove most unlikely and would be the exception. Furthermore, the general (idiotic) public would know little about shooting guns and only responsible individuals would own one, thus absolutely minimising the risk for its misuse. Its easy to want the right to have a gun in a society where you need to defend yourself, but that’s the point… I personally find Australia a better place to live because I don’t have to worry about needing to own a gun. If it ever comes to the point where I would feel like I’d need to own one, then this society would have degenerated indeed.

    81 Sean
    We don’t really have gun-owning yobos because we have strict gun laws. If you are a yobo, you’d never be allowed to have a gun to begin with.

    Which is more idiotic? A society that let’s yobos have guns or a society that limits gun use to responsible individuals? Which is safe? A society where I can stay at home not having to worry about owning a gun to protect myself or a society where I’d feel necessitated to own a firearm in fear of some yobo turning up at my door?

    If freedom is the point here, then I’d rather live freely from constant fear.

  • everlast

    Wow, most of the comments here are so full of fail I don’t even know where to start.

    I know where most of you can start, try reading the SCOTUS Heller case decision. It will clear up a lot of the complete BS spouted by you guys here, including the “regulated militia only” people here.

  • Banana

    @Moloch1123, I didn’t say that the scenario does not happen at all, I’m saying it is unlikely, and I don’t want to invite another risk into my house just incase something terrible happens. I could be in a car accident later on today, but that doesnt mean I’ll stop using a car for the fear of it. Just like I won’t buy a gun only because someone might break into my home.

  • alexman

    all you anti gun people sound stupid#

    firstly the US has a law stating you can own guns. this is their law and their culture and many other countries do the same. criminals in the UK can easily get guns whenever they want so all a ban on guns does is leave civilians defenceless and guns exclusively for gang members. secondly people have an irrational fear of guns that doesnt seem to extend to other weapons. in the UK and europe you can easily buy crossbows, longbows, axes,machetes, knives and swords which all have a longer history of dealing death

  • flamehorse

    @b2tharad (86): If I could defend myself without a gun, I would. But all the Chuck Norris karate-stomping whoopass is not gonna beat the man who draws a gun from 100 feet before he mugs you (unless you’re Chuck Norris, in which case the bullets won’t even leave the weapon out of fear).

    But making guns illegal does not apply to criminals, who refuse to obey the law anyway. Then the civilians who do obey the law are defenseless.

    Guns don’t kill people. Lions ripped on LSD kill people.

  • sof

    Pat: Too late to call the cops? Maybe things are different in the US, but where I live, 911 is a 24 hour service. Even small towns have access to on-duty police assistance, and can expect help to arrive within a reasonable amount of time. However, assuming one lives in a very remote location, cannot get to a phone or cannot summon help in time…

    I’m not a fan of guns, but I support the right to own certain firearm models, provided they aren’t concealable or excessively powerful (AKs, for instance). Most gun control advocates share this opinion; few want to outright ban all firearms.

  • DavidTehGnome

    If you desire to disarm private citizens of their constitutional right to defend themselves, their loved ones, their Nation, community, lively hoods and land. You had better bring a scientifically cogent nuts and bolts type argument to the table. One containing both historical merit, country encompassing validity and a rational studied look at the forest that is our nation.

    Thus far, I have read only emotional and at best foolishly irrational talk of the tree’s from a relatively large and frighteningly ill informed number of would be gun banners posting here. This isn’t even a second amendment related piece, beyond talking about gun efficiency it is a wobbly liberal soap box teetering with morons, wishing to abolish guns for everyone based on nothing more than the fact that they don’t own one and find them scary. Or by invoking the tragic anomalies of mass shootings or the deaths of “friendly” burglars.

    It’s like a whole swath of otherwise intelligent people woke up one day and decided that caring, empathetic, displays of morality were inversely proportional to critical thinking.

  • old_skool

    @ SOF. when seconds count, the police are only minutes away

  • Sean

    Actually, Panda, no one has the right to not face ricicule. You’re confusing rights with desires, and they ain’t the same. I never said I fought for the right of someone not to make a fool of themselves, since that right doesn’t exist either. But I have fought for the right of my people to live free, and that means they also have to take responsability for their actions, good or bad. Anyone that doesn’t own a gun, fine. And I also never said that a gun makes you invincible. But it does give you the ability to decide your own fate, when confronted with violence. So, if you won’t defend your own life, then you believe mine is worth nothing. And Panda, if no one is disputing the military’s right to guns, why did you bring it up? I’m far from confused. And I don’t need any protection, having brought my own. And you?

  • HandyMandy

    @ General Tits- I crack up every time you comment. A well funded, well run police dept. could make an impact on crime. And education is important any way you look at it. We should also hold parents more responsible for their kids actions. We have had 2 shootings recently in my area, and both were by kids. One was a child, the other, not a child, but old enough to know better. In both cases, I see the parents or lack of at fault. The first the child found the gun and was playing with it. Sad, sad story, but where were the parents? The other the older boy, no role models at home to set an example or to discipline. Children aren’t capable of raising themselves. Parents need to step it up, and I think that would take care of alot of problems. I know I’m getting off subject.

  • Finn

    Wow, I feel incredibly embarrassed as an American after reading the comments. To the world: I apologize for my paranoid, misanthropic countrymen. We aren’t all that backward.

  • Garash

    Oooh, you put a controversial question in there to stirr up conservative blood.

  • Chanchita

    To Jeff (58): If you don´t like them don´t own one? No, that doesn´t work. If I don´t own a gun, I´m ensuring that no-one gets shot by me. What I want to be sure of is that I won´t get shot by anyone else.

  • FREE MAN

    Guns vs. Doctors

    Doctors

    (A) The number of physicians in the U.S. is 700,000.

    (B) The number of accidental deaths caused by physicians per year are 120,000.

    (C) The number of accidental deaths per physician is 0.171.

    Statistics courtesy of U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

    Guns

    (A) The number of gun owners in the U.S. is 80,000,000. (Yes, that’s 80 million.)

    (B) The number of accidental gun deaths per year, all age groups, is 1,500.

    (C) The number of accidental deaths per gun owner is .0000188.

    Statistics courtesy of FBI

    SO, statistically, doctors are approximately 9,000 times more dangerous than gun owners.

    Remember, ‘Guns don’t kill people, doctors do.’

    FACT: NOT EVERYONE HAS A GUN, BUT ALMOST EVERYONE HAS AT LEAST ONE DOCTOR.

    Please alert your friends to this alarming threat.

    We must ban doctors before this gets completely out of hand.

    Out of concern for the public at large, I withheld the statistics on lawyers for fear the shock would cause people to panic and seek medical attention.

  • Panda

    @Sean, not owning a gun does not mean that I would not defend my own life. Just because I don’t have a gun does not mean I would just allow anyone to do anything to me. I do value my own life, and one of the things I choose to do with that life is not own a gun. Which I think everyone here (including you, we agree on something!) thinks is fine.
    I still can attempt to decide my own fate in a violent situation, gun or no gun.

  • VI6SIX

    How could you miss the B.A.R – Browning Automatic Rifle I think they issued them to 1 out of every 5 soldiers during the veitnam war. It had a very distinct boom sound to it that made the enemy shit themselves.

    Guns don’t kill people – people kill people. If you remove all of the legal firearms from society, the only ones left will be the illegal firearms. We should reserve the right to bear arms.

    Nuff said.

  • old_skool

    @ Free Man – well put. but i’m a doc! you’re making me look bad! lol.

  • Eyeswideshut

    Free Man: How many deaths did doctors prevent in the last year? I want you to count all cases where the patient would have died with treatment.

    How many deaths did GUNS prevent in the last one year?

  • SS

    G36 assault rifle
    M4, M16, ak74 (ak 47 SMG style O_O)
    automatic shotgun(‘s)
    walther pistols
    Desert Eagle (which you mentioned slightly)
    tommy gun

    you missed a lot that were pretty much historic since the day they came out

    instead you mentioned petty copys of the same gun
    2 bolt action rifles (mauser being the real historic one)
    2 LMG’s (the only difference being the rounds, though the buzzsaw made real history over the browning)
    2 pistols (walther p99 is better than the glock by far)
    2 revolvers (again pretty much same thing, but different rounds)
    and the ak47 that EVERYONE knows about

    how can you not even mention the M16? the assault rifle that the americans are so proud of…..

  • old_skool

    @ eyes- guns prevented thousands of deaths/serious assults last year. do some research.

  • Chanchita

    Panda: Agreed. There are ways to defend yourself other than shooting.
    Steve (66): A handgun saved the life of your wife and children, but how many lives has the handgun saved compared to the number it has taken?

  • Cernunnos

    guns really dont kill people. Canada has 4 times the amount of guns that the U.S. has (i think it was 4). and not even a fraction of the gun-related deaths, but they dont have vice-presidents that shoot people in the face either.

    the MP5 should certainly have been there.

    the ak47 is sadly misunderstood, partly due to the name, claiming its a rather inaccurate weapon. its actually really a semi-automatic, single-shot weapon. even the safety/fire rate selection can tell you that. who needs rapid fire when the bullets can pierce through concrete walls? whereas the m4 with all its accuracy [overexagerate]couldnt shoot its way out of a wet paper bag.[/overexagerate]

    Mosin Nagant should be here too.

    World at War is good, but Modern Warfare and Socom is better. ;)

  • SS

    oh and not to mention the first true AR to come to life…
    STG44
    the nazis invented it but heck it was revolutionary

  • HandyMandy

    @ Chanchita – To better your chances of not being shot.
    Get a job and buy your own stuff, don’t try to steal someone else’s. Don’t try to enter someone else’s home and threaten their family. Don’t dress up as a deer or some other game animal and go out in the woods. Call and report crime to the police-get criminals off the street.

  • Talanic

    Sean – I can respect your service record while disagreeing with what you say. Or, at least, how you say it.

    My ancestors (both of my grandfathers, to be precise) fought in WWII, altering the outcome of the war. Without the USA, the UK probably would have survived, albeit with a few years’ worth of starvation on the mainland. Once Hitler started to lose Germany to the USSR, he probably would have ordered France annihilated – he hated losing things.

    That’s all I’ll say about what-ifs for WWII. I don’t think you should speak about all Europeans as you do. It’s my opinion, and I’m entitled to it – you helped see to that.

  • brosiusjb

    This “criminals will be the only ones with guns if they are restricted” argument is idiotic. What is a criminal? A normal law-abiding citizen until he commits a crime. Arming these people with guns and letting them carry them everywhere is begging for trouble. Violent crimes aren’t limited to habitual criminals by a long shot. At least do away with personal hand gun usage. Wouldn’t a shot gun be a better way to protect a house anyway?

  • Alamo

    Subject or citizen? That is the question.

    Because you feel comfortable and safe today doesn’t mean you (or your children, or grandchildren) won’t be subjugated by the state next year, or ten years or even a hundred from now. Those who believe that the state should be central to the lives of all who live there tend to grow frustrated by the benighted masses resistance (electorally) to their infinite wisdom. The “messiness” of democratic republics are lamented by the self-anointed “elite”. The result has often been to bring the population to heel by force. History, the best teacher, is rife with examples. Armed CITIZENS are the single best bulwark against tyranny.

  • Cernunnos

    also, statistically, if you carry a gun when being mugged or robbed, you yourself is the one most likely to get shot.
    whoops.

    the 2. amendment is basically the right to carry a device that scares criminals into shooting you.

  • Chanchita

    @ Handy Mandy: Burglars and deer are not the only ones who get shot. The simple fact is, if guns are allowed, there will be more guns around. The more guns that are around, the higher the probability ANYONE has of being shot. (Stray bullets, crossfire, mugging etc)

  • SparkyBox

    Great list. But i can’t find the Krag Jørgensen Storm Rifle. It was the first Storm rifle and without it there wound’t be a Mauser. But great list.

  • Brandon

    I’ve read quotes in many books that claim the M1 was the edge that won the European ground war in WWII. That, the Tommy and BAR seem like some important guns to have on the list.

  • techstyles

    Sean – same old US WWII crap ? You saved us ? Yeah – only after Pearl Harbour when your own skins were in peril, as usual.
    Thanks for the support in the falklands too… that was sweet.

    Btw – “hearts and minds” is not a Shania Twain album…

  • Randall

    OKAY, SHUT UP FOLKS, and I’ll clear this all up for you.

    A) The right to bear arms is, like it or not, an American tradition even more than it is an actual right; but in fact it IS a right which the founding fathers felt was a vital one, seeing as they stuck it in the Bill of Rights right off the bat—which means that we as a culture placed it higher on our priority list, at the time, than, oh… say, granting the right to vote to women or abolishing slavery. This business about it referencing ONLY a militia is kind of a chimera. YES, the amendment SAYS that, but it’s never been wholly clear what it was actually supposed to mean. Gun nuts say it means that the founding fathers simply meant us to have guns, period. No debate. Gun opponents say, uh uh, it means that the ONLY legitimate reason for owning a gun is to act in defense of your country, and that you must, as a prerequisite of this, belong to a militia. But both sides are wrong, and two centuries of legal argument have borne that out. The fact is that when you weigh the second amendment by the same standards as the other amendments–i.e., you consider its wording in the same light as the wording of the others–it becomes clear (it’s the only thing about this question that DOES become clear) that the founding fathers meant THIS question, also, to be one which WE in their future were supposed to determine the answer to. In other words, each successive generation is supposed to define what it means to have a “right to bear arms.” The militia clause is a justification, a set-up to this, but it is not the end-all and be-all of it—if that were the case, we would never have had private gun ownership in the first place. Now, clearly, the founding fathers didn’t know about powerful automatic handguns and assault rifles and the like. We’re talking about an age when you had a gun to hunt with and to defend yourself and your land. Maybe they didn’t foresee the lengths to which technology could take the firearm. But I don’t think that was ever the point for them. That was for the future to take care of. These guys weren’t mystic visionaries, they were just wise-ass sages who coughed up the finest blueprint for a government mankind has yet produced. Good for them, but they weren’t supernatural or perfect. And they knew that. So their focus on this particular question was the same as with others—there is, they believed, a clear and obvious right to freedom of speech and the press—but we aren’t going to lay out all the little nuances and minutiae of that—YOU need to decide that in the future. Yes, we find the establishment of state religions repugnant, and we aren’t going to allow that, but you folks in the future need to determine what distance between the state and spirituality or religion is appropriate. Owning a firearm is a basic right, because, in the first place, a stable society has to have a populace that can defend itself against foreign AND domestic tyrants and well, just plain defend itself. But we aren’t going to go into detail about it and tell you in advance all the rules or which rules are appropriate and which aren’t. YOU in the future need to figure that out. And that’s us, here and now.

    B) Now, is this appropriate for ALL societies? Well, if it’s in the Constitution and/or the Bill of Rights, then by our own revolutionary principles, we inherently believe it applies to all mankind. Being a good American in the revolutionary spirit and philosophical senses, I am therefore bothered by the idea of other societies where guns are outlawed. Many of them are no less violent than ours; many of them are oppressive regimes. Many are democracies which are peaceful and decent places to live. Clearly, guns per se don’t grant you anything special. And NOT having guns doesn’t change the mix much either. It’s the POTENTIAL of guns that we’re really thinking about when we look with an approving or disapproving eye at other societies. Bottom line is, though, that while we believe our American model to be the best form of government there is, we can’t *really* go around *acting* that way, because mighty as we are, it ain’t real nice to be the bully on the block, even if you think you’re right and big-hearted. What right do we have to tell Britain that they should allow their citizens to freely possess and carry handguns? Their society seems to get along fine without that. And for all our grand philosophies about it over here, we have to face up to the fact that our love of the gun has made our society even MORE violent and nasty, at times. It’s our tradition, yes, but that tradition can also be very dark and bloody.

    C) Which brings me to my next point of prescience that you should all be listening to. The real problem with America, vis a vis firearms, is not that we have them, but that we basically make f**king LOVE to them. We’re not just a gun culture—we’re sick about it. We have a love for the gun that is almost as strong as our love for the automobile. That’s f**king twisted. And if you don’t think it’s twisted, then you’re part of the problem. The issue isn’t the RIGHT to bear arms, really—the issue is how we conduct ourselves around that right. Which is always the problem with us. We are a big, fat, greedy, uncouth and vulgar society that doesn’t know how to act with any finesse or self-control. And it’s repellent. It’s no wonder that much of the world, while sliding between like and dislike of America itself over the years, (that is America as a concept and as a helping hand or a stalwart ally) has never much liked AMERICANS per se. Oh, individual Americans, yes. An individual is an individual. Can be a sweet person or a total cock. But Americans, as a collective group—we’re a bunch of loudmouth assholes, and let’s face it–we are. That isn’t just some perception—that’s what we’ve allowed ourselves to be, out of self-satisfaction, smugness and downright provincialism.

    No less than with anything else, it’s our sick love affair with violence and the gun in particular that partly defines us. And that’s a problem. It’s a big problem. It isn’t that we OWN guns… it’s that we GLORIFY them. It isn’t that we’re a violent people—we are, but so is the rest of mankind. But we GLORIFY violence. And we also vulgarize these things… and so it’s no wonder that a vast swath of our under classes act violently, and carry guns and USE them with such abandon. It’s no wonder that kids bring guns to school, or shoot each other in inner cities as though it meant no more than crossing the street. It’s no wonder that f**ked up middle class brats snap and shoot up their schools and schoolmates with automatic weapons. We live in a f**king cartoon in this country—a sick and twisted cartoon—and violence and guns here are viewed in the same light as we view Sylvester the Cat taking it on the head with a sledgehammer.

    Our problem isn’t, then, constitutional. It’s SOCIETAL. Now, me personally—I would have no problem with banning handguns. I don’t see the need for them. Or at least banning automatic weapons. Why do we need MORE and more efficient ways to kill? But I accepted long ago that this is never likely to happen, and if tomorrow I was made King of America, banning handguns wouldn’t be top on my priority list of Things to Fix. Would it do something to reduce the effed-up gun culture in this society? Yeah, of course it would. Is the way to fix this problem amputation though? I’m not so sure.

    The real answer is that America needs to grow the f**k up. We need to start showing some self-restraint and some sense of humility. Do you think this land o plenty and this superpower shit is going to last forever? Ah ha ha, silly Americans. No sense of f**king history. A country a little over 200 years old, and we think we’ll be on top of the world forever. That’s what we’re like. We’re children. And we play with guns just like we play with everything else.

    So here’s something that could make it stop. Be honest about it. Stop pretending that all these weapons are innocent devices for self-defense and “hunting.” Bullshit. We LOVE them. And we love them for their power and destructive capability. So stop and think about “loving” a weapon, a weapon that kills people horribly and brutally. How would Jesus look at that, people? He’d shake his head in sadness and disgust, and you KNOW he would.

    The gun is a necessary evil, and one that we shouldn’t love, but have a revulsion for, even while we go on believing that we ought to by every right posssess them. Start looking at it THAT way, and in time we wouldn’t have to have this debate about the gun. The place of the gun in our society would reduce to what it OUGHT to be, and not what it is—which at present is one of the centerpieces of what we are. And that’s f**king sick.

  • everlast

    @Cernunnos

    the number of firearms per person in Canada and the USA is similar, with the total amount being largest in the US.

    and your partially right with the AK47 and the selector, it shows the opposite of what you claim, it goes from Safe, to Full auto, to Semi. Indicating it was NOT meant as a single shot weapon, but as an assault weapon to be used by untrained conscripts to lay down massive amount of fire, similar to how the Russians used SMGs in WW2.

  • Chanchita

    Sorry, Randall, are you PROUD of the American gun culture?

  • HandyMandy

    @ Chanchita – Stray bullets, crossfire, mugging- take the criminals off the street. I know only in a perfect world, but it seems we expect so little out of people these days. And the prisons are overrun anyway. There are alot of changes that need to be made all the way down the chain.

  • Gigans

    MY town if where the lee-einfield was first made :)

  • Gilraen

    111 Garash:

    Not just conservative blood — liberal and moderate blood, too.

    I would be happy to see all guns disappear, but THAT WILL NOT HAPPEN. It’s not possible.

    Therefore, because I live in an area with bad guys, I choose to carry. I have a license, and I practice. No one has a right to take away my constitutional rights to own my guns, and I will not give them up.

    This doesn’t mean I’m crazy, or angry at the world. It doesn’t mean I’m stupid. It means I recognize that since criminals use guns to commit crimes, if I want to defend myself from them, I need to carry a gun to prevent them from turning me into one of their victims.

    No one needs to apologize for me. I simply refuse to be a victim when I have a choice in the matter.

  • Chanchita

    HandyMandy: And does it occur to you that ordinary citizens may become criminals once in possession of a gun? And then we have to take them off the street as well? I don´t see that helping the overcrowding problem.

  • bry

    what’s that knife shown next to the colt 1911?

  • Charles Johnson

    Isn’t there some kind of gay marriage thread you anti-gun nuts can go comment on?

  • Cernunnos

    @everlast:

    maybe it was 4 firearms per person in canada? the total could still be larger in the u.s. even if each canadian statistically owned more weapons. not sure.

    exactly, safe to full auto to semi. in the heat of battle, try putting the pin from safe to full auto. ;)
    the M4 on the other hand goes from safe to semi to full.

    @Randall:
    let me know when thats available in paperback. :)

  • Ike

    The M 134 should be on this list. I fired hundred of thousands of rounds through it and NEVER had a malfunction.

    I saw a couple mentions of the M4/M16… that should be saved for the WORST firearms in history list.

  • HandyMandy

    Chanchita – Also, my earlier post-if we held parents more responsible for their children and their actions, I think we would have less criminals. And I’m not talking about the government getting involved, I’m saying people in general. Expect more from your fellow man.

  • Randall

    @Chanchita (134):

    Uh, try READING my post this time. No, I’m not proud of it—I DETEST it.

  • ames801

    Here’s my one and only experience with a gun: I was about 15 or so and my friend wanted to show me how to shoot his bee-bee gun. We were on his farm and he TOLD me how to do it-not show me-and I accidentally shot one of his horses in the butt. I cried. He laughed (at me) and I never tried it again. However, being a single mom [Hi Randall :)] I wouldn’t mind learning how to shoot a gun properly. I’m not really up on my statistics so I won’t throw a bunch of numbers around blindly-but I’m pretty sure more gun control would not stop the criminals from carrying. Right?

  • Alamo

    Holy shit Randall. I don’t know who your neighbors are, but I’m glad I don’t live there. I live in a rural community (and in several others previously) where guns are omnipresent; a part of the fabric of those societies. I see no “gun waving”, or idle threats, or gun driven machismo. Firearms are simply considered tools and are not a badge of masculinity.

    The sickness you describe is foreign to me, and I have been around for a long time. If the entertainment industry glorifies violence, or if the media markets news coverage of geographically and socially isolated violent subcultures, that is certainly not an accurate reflection of our society as a whole.

    I know you are a sharp guy, but that shit was over the top.

  • Davy

    guns are kool yo

  • HandyMandy

    Chanchita – Ordinary people would not need to be criminals. I’m not a criminal, I know other gun owners and they’re not criminals. We are called productive citizens.

  • Sean

    Panda, if you dedide to attempt to defend yourself without a gun in a violent assault, the odds are against you, because more than half the time, the bad guy will have a gun. Good luck. Twice, I have only had to show my gun to stop a criminal. Talanic, you are right about your own opinion, and I have another. Please tell, me, if you can, who was it that kept Central Europe from mass starvation 1945-1948? Could it have been the Great Satan? I’ll lay odds it was not the Soviet Union. The reason I’m down on the Euro types is because they are so ashamed of themselves, of how they absolutely screwed up the 20th century, and so ashamed of how we pulled their asses out, twice, and kept them from starving to death from the results, that all we hear over here is rubbish about how bad WE are. Don’t piss down my back and tell me it’s raining. The petulant children of the EU couldn’t win a schoolyard brawl against the special needs kids, and all they do about the imminent threat posed by Iran and the rest is talk. We’re not riding to the rescue this time, so you better warm up that prayer rug, and bend over, because it’s coming, and we ain’t.

  • Freshies

    What about the Remington 870 12GA pump action?

    I’m not sure about the world having guns, but I sure do like americans having the right, especially now that we have an ever growing government. They can only do so much when everyone is packing heat in their closets at home, I love that. I’d like to see those sons of bitches in the Whitehouse try and take our guns away, it would be the biggest civil war in history.

  • Jeremy

    Asimonsays243: I served in Iraq myself. Most Iraqis did not and could not own guns before the invasion. Now almost all households have an AK! My overall points is an armed person is not a victim. I currently live in a country where owning ammo will get you the death penalty, let alone a gun. The only thing that makes me fell safe is my special forces training. Guns need be only in responsible hands, that’s why a convicted felon can’t own one, or let me rephrase a concealable weapon. But most guns used in stranger to stranger violence are unregistered ‘hot’ ones from the street. I stand by my point, as long as Americans have guns we will never be successfully invaded or oppressed! Period! I am proud of the fact that my state (Oregon) has an air-force, and armored troops. In a world like this it is damn good that my state alone has a military that rivals most of developed world! And to my European friends, if I lived that close to Germans I would want as many guns as I could get! To which you have never learned your lesson. But don’t fret America and Canada will come to your rescue again, NATO = American protection. I do not say this to offend, it is just the facts. ( I have served with SAS, if only Europe had more of those type of guys)

  • everlast

    @cernunnos

    “The AK-47 was the result of Soviet combat experience during World War II. Studies of battlefield reports showed most combat occurred within 300 meters, and the winner was usually the side with the most firepower.”

    “Soviet doctrine placed an emphasis on the use of armored spearheads in an attack, followed closely by troop transports like the BTR-70”

    “It gave the average soldier a high rate of fire rendering an AK-equipped squad’s firepower equivalent to submachine guns at close range, while also having a sufficiently powerful cartridge to engage moderately distant targets.”

    its primary use was short ranged automatic fire, NOT single shot rifle style shooting.

  • Randall

    @Alamo (146):

    Bullshit, Alamo. You are in denial, which is EXACTLY the problem I was addressing.

    Don’t try to shit me, dude. I have roots in the big city, but I’m basically as rural as you can get, so don’t try to tell me it isn’t like this.

    “Firearms are simply considered tools and are not a badge of masculinity.”

    BULLSHIT. If you’re going to tell me that guns are simply considered tools, you’re either a blind fool or a liar, or both. And I never brought up “masculinity.” The word was never mentioned in my lengthy missive. I know WOMEN who love their guns just as equally as men do. I have a friend, a woman, who is so gun nuts you’d think she was Ted Nugent.

    An innocent tool with no other associated emotions around it? You’re full of it, Alamo. Maybe you just can’t see it, you’re in denial—but it hardly matters. You’re dead wrong.

    “The sickness you describe is foreign to me, and I have been around for a long time.”

    You’re inured to it and in denial about it. Pure and simple.

    “If the entertainment industry glorifies violence, or if the media markets news coverage of geographically and socially isolated violent subcultures, that is certainly not an accurate reflection of our society as a whole.”

    Society AND the media glorify guns and violence, Alamo. Don’t try to slough it off as “the media’s fault.” Your head is in the clouds about this. It isn’t because of some movies and TV shows that we have the problems we have with this issue. It’s because of the way PEOPLE view guns and violence. And your attitude is typical of the problem—denying that it even exists. You’re as full of it as a person can be.

    “I know you are a sharp guy, but that shit was over the top.”

    Hardly. It was in fact restrained. YOU are blind and outrageously foolish.

  • scottyjohnston

    alright, its fine the m16 and m14 are not on the list, neither are historic changes and the m16 was actually less of a rifle then the ak during the Vietnam war. the m14 carbine is a good upgrade and is in wide usage now but neither deserve to be on this list just because of their popularity. maybe the Springfield and the garand. but then again two major drawbacks of the m1 garand were the sites, and the cartridge that could not be reloaded half way through. i recently fired the cv58 which is very similar to the ak, and let me tell you, in real combat, there is no real use for accuracy more then 300+ yards away. 100 is diffcult considering the recoil, sites, and adrenaline you would have in combat situations

  • Chanchita

    Handy Mandy: I´m not saying that guns turn people into criminals. But neither do they turn people into ´productive citizens´.
    All it takes is one moment of anger for a person to kill another person. It´s been known to happen because of garden borders. Humans are susceptible to passionate fits of rage, and if they´ve got a gun handy, that can so easily become a tragedy.
    What´s more, I read in the news that just last week, in England, a ten-year-old boy was killed in an air rifle accident. He was killed because his family owned a gun and for no other reason.

  • Son Of Liberty

    Ok, I have to correct some things that are on here. First, the argument that the second amendment applies only to the National Guard is utterly false. The well regulated militia section is just an explanation by the founding fathers for WHY they put the second amendment in there, it is NOT a restriction placed on that right. Even if you were to make the argument that it was, that would still hardly restrict anyone from carrying firearms. Why you ask? Because the militia of the United States consists of every able bodied male in good standing between the ages of 18 and 65. That’s the historically accurate definition of the militia when the constitution was written. And as for those that say the Second Amendment won’t last long or is doomed, get real. The government of the United States will fall or massacre its citizens before that happens. Because they’ll have to pry our guns from our cold, dead, hands. (Which will be kind of hard considering the majority of military and law enforcement are pro-second amendment)

  • Lazarus

    What about the AA-22? Have you seen this shot-gun?

  • Cernunnos

    @everlast:

    i never said it wasnt mostly used as a automatic firearm, just that it was indeed designed as a semi-automatic with an option for full automatic fire. my cellphone isnt an mp3 player, but it has the abillity to play the format.

    when used as a semi-automatic its as accurate as any other weapon (almost, at least), and can therefore not be slandered as lacking in accuracy.

  • Davy

    @Chanchita (155):
    how can someone be killed with an air rifle?

  • HandyMandy

    Alamo – You are so right in your observation, they are tools, and should be used as so when needed.

  • Austen123

    @Randall (132): Well said

  • Eclecticpoet

    I’m an american who served in Iraq and I thought I’d clear up something for you all. Every family in Iraq is allowed to own one AK47 and one 30 round clip of ammunition. Let me give you a little history lesson also. One of the first things Hitler did when he gained power was to outlaw the private ownership of guns. He said it was for the safety of the citizens, but I think hindsight shows that wasn’t the case.

  • Chanchita

    @ Davy:
    He was hit at close range and died of internal bleeding, apparently.

  • Davy

    @Eclecticpoet (163):
    True

  • Cernunnos

    so just because hitler wanted to ban guns it means its bad?

  • archangel

    126 Alamo

    A well educated and tolerant society (this including the political elite) are the best bulwarks against tyranny. If you haven’t realised… tyrants across the world use armed citizens to enforce their rule.

  • flamehorse

    I love instigating. First it was the Jesus/no Jesus debate. Now guns/no guns. Gotta think of a crusher for the third one.

  • Davy

    @Chanchita (164):
    thanks

  • Sean

    Having actually killed several people with the M-16, I can say it works, is dependable, and up to the task. .308 is of course, more powerful, and has better range, as well as accuracy. I wonder how many of it’s detractors have actually carried the M-16 in combat, as an infantryman? I thought so. It’s lighter weight translates into more rounds carried, which means longer staying power in a fight, and if you hit a target, rather than spray and pray, they’ll go down. There’s more than half a dozen Viet-Cong that don’t write home so much, because they ran in to me, and my M-16, so spare me the .308 stories, I’ve
    heard most of them already. And every pound you carry in combat translates into more water and food needed for the strength and endurance to do so. AK’s are fine, if you don’t need to actually hit anything beyond 100 meters. And, they, and their ammo, magazines etc., weigh more. Sing Loy. Shotguns are Number One, GI.

  • Kristin

    As an American citizen myself I hate the fact that we “have the right to bear arms”, it scares the crap out of me. I think gus should be left to police officers and military, not everyday street thugs. I hate knowing that at anytime I could be out eating with my family and some crazy person who ordered his steak well done and got it rare could potentailly pull out a gun, go bananas and shoot up the place. Some People don’t respect the power guns have, they think it’s “cool” to flash around a gun and they have no remorse if that hurt or even kill someone. I know there are individuals out there that don’t take owning guns lightly and they know the proper safety and care it takes to own one. But with so many people owning guns now and days it makes it that much easier for people that shouldn’t have guns to steal them. My neighbor actually had his gun stolen and who knows whos hands that wound up in.

    The whole gun thing scares me, i don’t like them one bit. I hate when people have them around me. I can recall one time when I was younger I got picked up for curfew and the cop had me ride in the front seat, and right next to me was a shotgun. I had a panic attack because of it, thats how much I don’t like them.

    But this is just my opinion and as an American tha is one thing I love… freedom of speech!

  • Chanchita
  • Cernunnos

    @sean:

    serving in a war, and taking lifes out of neccesity os one thing. but: “There’s more than half a dozen Viet-Cong that don’t write home so much, because they ran in to me, and my M-16”

    bragging about it is another, and its disgusting.

  • Chanchita

    @ Kristin: Found myself nodding along to your comment. You make the same point as me about people being prone to flip out at any point over stupid things.
    I´m from England, where police are not armed, and I had never seen a gun in the flesh (as it were) until I moved here to Chile. I find them frightening and don´t like talking to police officers.

  • HandyMandy

    The family owned a gun, and handled it irresponsibly. So a ten year old died. I’m not saying that isn’t tragic, but where is the responibility?? With the family. Educate people. Expect more from people.

  • Davy

    @Chanchita (172):
    Yeah, now I remember seeing that in the news a week or so ago. Pretty shocking.

  • leewey

    without getting into the whole ethical issues on weapons and coming back to the actual list…..

    i think you are right regarding the ak47, its is a stupidly easy weapon to use and is as tough as old boots (you might even want to include the chinese varients of this but i have no experience of them)

    however as a ex member of the british army who has been to afghanistan (specifically helmand province…sangin, geresk, musa qala)they might question the accuracy of this weapon. of course the person who is firing it makes a massive difference to the accuracy but saying this is accurate to 400yds is slightly out – especially when firing automatic!!!!

    slightly suprised a heckler and koch weapon has not been added to the list as it has been used by police/special forces throughout the world and is proven in close quarter battle – even if the recoil on the mp5 feels like you are firing a spud gun!!!

  • Cindy

    EVERYONE should have access to self-protection. There could always be a breakout of zombies, or an alien invasion.

  • Chanchita

    HandyMandy: Also, with the government. If we could go back in time and make it illegal for that family to get the gun, no matter whose responsibility it was, it would be worth it if it saved just one child´s life.

  • Alamo

    Wow.

    I appreciate your effort to psychoanalyze me (denial?) and open my eyes. That you know “people” (male or female) who display this unhealthy affection is hardly convincing. Other than my point about the media and entertainment industries (that you seem to agree with in part), you seem to heavily weight your own anecdotal evidence.

    I don’t deny that there are folks who are exactly as you describe them; that they are representative is highly debatable. That the average American, in particular the average American gun owner, glorifies violence is (I’m sorry to join your insult festival, but I must), stupid- beyond stupid. If that small subset of gun owners you have personal knowledge of are of this ilk, you have my sympathy.

    If that is your idea of restraint, I suppose I understand why you tend to congregate with the more outlandish personalities in your area.

  • Freshies

    They protect us from our government (The USA) plain and simple. The Liberals in Washington D.C. would love to have total control of the country but they can’t. Why? Because we would shoot the hell out of them and that is awesome.

  • Eclecticpoet

    @Cernunnos:

    My point was not that Hitler did it so it must be bad. My point is that de-armament of a population is the first step in subjugating it. If the German citizenry had remained armed the Nazis would never have been as powerful as they were and the destruction they wrought would have been lessened. Also, I was illustrating the irony that guns were banned in Germany purportedly to protect the populace, but millions of German citizens were rounded up and killed by the soldiers and police. How do you think it would have went had all the German Jews been armed when the gestapo came for them?

  • Davy

    @Cindy (178):
    I can just see a zombie breakout looming on the horizon.

  • Gauldar

    Seriously… no Tommy? It’s quite iconic in style, and its development is rich in history. It deserves as much recognition as the AK-47.

  • Cernunnos

    @:Eclecticpoet

    the situation with privately owned firearms in germany at that time cant be compared to todays american society. the germans have always had a very… clinical interest in guns, and most other things.

    i think that if all the jews had had firearms when the gestapo came for them, less of them would have survived. but they would have died a more honourable death.

    hitler was a master of deception, none of the things he did were what they seemed.

    i wont say that banning guns in the u.s. will lower murder rates significantly, but alot of gun-related deaths simply wouldnt happen had guns been regulated.
    not all gun-related deaths are murder.

  • happypants78

    Great list, In answer to your question, I think that everybody should have the right to bear arms, but if you look at the U.S. crime rate, being able to own and carry a gun certainly doesn’t deter crime. Not to mention all the boneheads that end up shooting themselves, or their little brothers/sisters. On a side note, the .303 Lee-Enfield has a fantastic graphic novel written about it called “303”
    I recommend it, it’s a great read.

  • Alamo

    “A well educated and tolerant society (this including the political elite) are the best bulwarks against tyranny. If you haven’t realised… tyrants across the world use armed citizens to enforce their rule.”

    Archangel- Educated to who’s standard, tolerance to what ideals, decided by whom? What you are saying is, if you conform to a set of principles (again, who is that omnipotent arbiter?) there won’t be any trouble.

    You may not be aware that early in this century, through the 1950’s that many of the politically “enlightend” in the west lauded A. Hitler, B, Mussolini, J. Stalin, and of course the intelligentsia’s beloved Chairman Mao. These gentlemen were cheered for their progressive programs and disdain for the conventions of democratic principle- too slow, inefficient. And if you had to dispose of a “few” miscreants who did not embrace their programs, so be it.

    In the end, the enlightened, with their armed adherents-not citizens- imposed their will on a disarmed populace, and became the greatest collection of mass murderers in history.

  • MommaDuck

    The saying is true: guns don’t kill people, people kill people. Plain and simple. Those of us who are Americans,living in America are fortunate enough to live in a free country. Our forefathers fought and died for our rights. They wrote our constitution to make sure that our rights weren’t violated by anyone, including the government. As Americans, we have these rights because of what our these men and women did long before us.
    Should this right be afforded to all countries around the world, not sure on that one. I do know that if I was to move to another country I would do so legally first and foremost, then make it my responsibility to follow the countries laws.

    What about the 500 Magnum?
    http://www.popularmechanics.com/outdoors/sports/1277336.html
    Now that’s a gun. Proud gun owner.

  • Randall

    @Alamo (180):

    You’re unbelievable. Anecdotal? And your ridiculous claims are anything else?

    Just what scientific measuring tool would you like to use, jackass, to establish this one way or the other? Nice try, but you’re swinging wildly. And you missed. The fact is that societal questions of this nature are *by their very definition* largely anecdotal. But that isn’t the point. Anyone with eyes to see can observe clearly that we live in a gun-loving society. You yourself began this by admitting that practically everyone you know owns one, I believe. Which is not, in fact, true of the people *I* know. But again, this isn’t about what *I* think I know and what *you* think you know. We don’t need to debate the question “do most Americans speak English?” nor do we need to establish some absolute parameters by which that question can ONLY be definitively answered. We know damn well that most Americans speak English.

    By the same token, we know damn well that our society has a love affair with the gun—it’s all around us NOT ONLY in the media, but in day to day life in people we meet and know. And if you’re going to try to tell me that the people *I* know are some bizarre exception, you’re completely f**king full of it.

    “I appreciate your effort to psychoanalyze me (denial?)”

    There was no psychoanalysis involved; you can’t bag me with that tired old saw either. I told you you are in denial because YOU ARE. If you deny that there is not a gun culture out there in this country that reveres, glorifies and romanticizes the gun, then you’re just a goddamned liar, or you’re deep in denial.

    But in any case, you fit the pattern of what causes this and what’s wrong here. People convincing themselves that they and everyone they know are just “responsible citizens” who view the gun as a “tool and nothing else.” Now, no… is the rural-living gun nut with 12 shotguns and/or rifles and a couple handguns, etc., the same bird as the inner city thug who carries a gun with him all the time, ready to shoot anyone who pisses him off? No, of course not. But they’re all wrapped up into the same package–they’re both products of the glorification, acceptance, and romanticization of the gun as a part of our societal makeup.

    “and open my eyes. That you know “people” (male or female) who display this unhealthy affection is hardly convincing.”

    Nor was that the gist of my argument. Far from it. But it WAS the basis of YOURS. The basis of YOUR argument was that the people YOU know view their guns as mere tools, and NOTHING else.

    “I don’t deny that there are folks who are exactly as you describe them; that they are representative is highly debatable.”

    And again, bullshit. If you’re going to tell me that ALL the gun people I’ve known are just peculiar abberations, you’re spewing nonsense.

    BUT AGAIN–this is NOT some pissing match about who *I* know and who *you* know. This is a broad societal question that CLEARLY exists, and denying THAT is where you go over the deep end into nonsense territory. You apparently think I’m only talking about people who slobber over their guns like maniacs and can’t own enough of them and love to go the gun range so they can shoot their assault rifles. Bull. I’m talking about an overall attitude that views guns with not only basic acceptance, but openly and lovingly embraces the gun as a concept.

    “That the average American, in particular the average American gun owner, glorifies violence is (I’m sorry to join your insult festival, but I must), stupid- beyond stupid.”

    You are beyond ridiculous. Are you going to ACTUALLY F**KING DENY that this culture of ours GLORIFIES VIOLENCE? Get your head out of your ass. We LOVE violence. We love to watch it, we love to hear about it, we love to think about it; it’s a vicarious joy for Americans. As you so readily pointed out, it’s all over our media—and don’t give me that bullshit that that’s another abberation. It’s all over our media because that’s who and what we are, as a people.

  • everlast

    @Alamo (187):

    170,000,000 dead people, murdered by the hand of their over government would agree with you.

    170,000,000 men, women, and children who were defenseless to protect themselves from their own government. Thats what happens when the protectors become the predators. When their is no way for the people to keep their own government in check.

    So called “progressive” regimes that though, “hey whats wrong with eliminating certain undesirables as long as our society becomes better for it”…

    Yes, that number is not an exaggeration. 170 Million people who if given the choice, would of liked to have a firearm for at least a fighting chance against their own murderous government.

  • ben

    jeez alot of the comments bove make me feel horrible about being an american >_<

  • Renee Pussman

    An armed society is a polite society.

  • Davy

    @everlast (190):
    Well said

  • HandyMandy

    Chanchita, only in a perfect world. The family still handled the gun irresponsibly. It is still a tradgedy that a child died. Also, I appreciate your point of view, and the intelligent conversation. And I promise I won’t blow a gasket and start waving my gun around because we disagree. I think this is one of those things we will have to agree to disagree. ;)

  • Petie

    Well said, Randall. You have meds straightened out today, I see, old man.

    Nice list! I disgree about the Glock, though.

    You want my American point of view? Firearm ownership is a right. To some it’s a right and a traidition. To others, it’s a right, tradition, and protection from baddies and even the gov’t. I actually have 6 of the guns listed above. I like to collect firearms based on their signifigance and designs. The Mauser 98 is one of my favorites. The Enfield is really nice, too. The AK couldn’t hit the side of a barn, but sure is fun to unload. But, a European might as well classify me a typical cowboy, tractor, horse, and all.

    I used to believe that if the US government wanted to oppress it’s people, she could with her massive military. But upon further investigation, noting the devastating and demoralizing effects simple civilians can have against a trained army, I think it would be a absolute debacle. Both sides would be devastated. But, that’ll never happen here. Americans love to bicker and fight, but when push comes to shove, we unite really well. We’re one big dysfuntional family, and we like it that way.

    I forgot my point. Anyway, guns are tools and sometimes neccesary evils. There are bad people out there, and more than once I used a personal firearm for protection. Except that time I approached the dude with a chainsaw cutting down my tree. That was dumb. Wish I had a gun on me when I confronted him.

  • atlaseternal

    I am an American.
    There are two types of people in this world those that can defend themselves and those who can’t. I am not some gun slinging cowboy, however when all the military power lays solely with the government one must ask how much power do the people truly have . A healthy level of mistrust must exist between the people and their government , in order for the checks and balance between them to be present. There is only one true golden rule: those who have the gold ,make the rules. The government of any nation in which all military power lies with them, has too much power. Reason and discussion and votes and nomination, mean nothing in the face of tyrannical rule.
    In a perfect world ,guns would not exist, however this is not a perfect world , and one must do what he has to inorder to protect his kin from man , best , or political forces .

  • Read this plz

    You have to remember that Americans have fought very hard for the right to bear-arms, it’s like respect in the way that it’s not given it’s earned. Our government has earned our trust(kinda) they know thier will never be a uprising as long as they keep us hearing what they want us to hear, and if they slip just think wako Texas and JFK ect.. . The chinese government is hard to explian, in the way it’s not really any thing different than a way of life that has been going on for thousands of years. Think this- the Chinese wife dedicated thier whole life to there husband, but at any second he would give his life for hers, they’d have always have had a love for those over them therefore riasing the person over them even higher. I think if the rulers were as respectable as they use to be think “the last samuri” it’s not so bad, but these days thier is not respect on either side, mainly because of western influence. Wow I typed all this on an iPod tuch

  • archangel

    187 Alamo…

    Interesting response. Indeed, some would consider these historical tyrants intelligentia. However, you overstepped a critical point of mine… tolerance and education. Stalin ruled a country of uneducated peasants knowing nothing about economics and politics. Hitler was barely tolerant. Mao had both characteristics.

    I do not mean education to conforming to anything. I mean education as in truthful awareness to what is actually happening. How is a Russian peasant supposed to understand the true nature of Marxism if they haven’t even studied it, or actually tried to understand it. It’s like democracy… democracy only works if people actually know how and why it works.

    True. Stalin, Hitler and Mao were considered intelligentia. But that wasn’t my point. My point was, if the masses were educated, then these ‘so called intelligentia elite’ would no doubt face questioning, stronger intellectual opposition, and not have the ‘hearts and minds’ capacity to influence (or brainwash) people.

    Tolerance on the other hand is a necessary component. If hitler had been tolerant, then he wouldn’t even consider the holocaust. If Mao had been tolerant, he would allow for political opposition.

    I mentioned what I mentioned because tyranny across the globe is usually manifested through giving arms to the civilian populace. Hugo Chavez gives arms to civilians, turning them into city-mercenaries. Saddam Hussein also gave civilians arms to do his dirty work. In Somalia, everyone is armed… as a result, the place is a giant hell-hole full of bickering armed warlords fighting each other for control of land like a blown-up gangland war. You can’t exactly call everyone in Somalia a non-civilian if you want to make that case. EVERYONE in Somalia pretty much is involved in the fighting, therefore, it’s become a civilian v civilian conflict.

  • FREE MAN

    Let’s see, some don’t want the people OR the cops to have guns…that leaves only the hoods…just great, just f$&%ing great!

    A lot of people have been killed with kitchen knives, should we ban them too???

    There is a town in Taxes where the city council required ALL its citizens to have and carry a gun — the crime rate dropped to zero.

    When D.C. banned all guns the crime rate jumped 500%!

    Those who are un-educated in the PROPER use of any kind of a gun are more likely to shoot someone and usually do. This includes children as well as adults.

    Guns, properly stored and inaccessible to kids are the responsibility of the adult owner of the gun. Most accidents are cause by not knowing the proper use of a gun and/or leaving a “loaded” gun where it can be found by a kid.

    All this has been like throwing a big rock into a cesspool and watching the sh#t rise!!!

    …It also disturbes the flys!!!

  • Alamo

    Well Randall,

    Good luck with all of “that”. Maybe your ranting will convince people how sick our society is and everyone will conform to your vision- whatever that is. Certainly we should all be obligated to fit into your idyllic “healthy” society.

    The ability to divine all that ails American society and diagnose this cancer that afflicts us must weigh heavily. You see it- everyone else is blind (or in denial). You are visionary…………

  • HandyMandy

    I would like to see someone do a list of top 10 home defense mechanisms. A thoroughly researched list.

  • General-Jake

    I own about half a dozen guns myself. One of which is an AK. I believe all people should be able to own guns. It prevents more than it hurts i think. I cant even imagine livin in a country that doesn’t let a person stay strapped!

  • HandyMandy

    Thank you again FREE MAN.

  • archangel

    190 everlast

    Good factual assessment. But you missed a crucial point. How is a person who owns a gun in his house going to topple and stop the Russian communist party from killing him and his family?

    Answer: political opposition. You can have the gun, but in the face of a colossus, it doesn’t matter. You will die. If you don’t have broader (political) support from the populace… there won’t be any revolution against tyrannical governments.

    Thus, to conclude my point. Politics (education, etc.) matters more than the gun.

    188 MommaDuck
    The saying is true: guns don’t kill people, people kill people.

    True. But people with guns can kill people more effectively.

  • Sean

    Cernannos, not bragging, just telling you the facts. What’s disgusting to you, is the fact that you don’t have the guts to do the same, is all. You want to hear me brag? My guns (the ones I own now) have killed fewer people than Ted Kennedy. And if you find the animating contest of freedom disgusting to talk about, why don’t we talk about how long you’re going to last when the SHTF? Short subject.

  • MrSimmonsSr

    Anyone who doesn’t know how many guns SAVE LIVES every year here in the US needs to take a quick look at this link. It happens every day, as you will see here. And this is just the tip of the iceberg because it is only the stories that make it into the newspaper.

    http://www.claytoncramer.com/gundefenseblog/blogger.html

    All you people who want to rant for gun control should be ashamed of yourself. You need to be able to defend your own children and family members from the predators of this world. What happened to the men of Europe? When did you abdicate the duty of defending your own families?

    How sad..

  • everlast

    @archangel (204):

    try telling that to the troops stuck in Iraq and afghans tan for the past several years. The worlds most powerful army has yet to quell the rebellion of a few thousand people armed with little more than rifles and home made explosives.

    The US has something like 80 million guns in private hands, several million gun owners. You think that an uprising of of several million would be easily crushed by the Army when they have been unable to subdue only a few thousand in Iraq???

  • Sean

    Archangel, go to siseystreetirregulars.blogspot.com and see how a half dozen starving Jews with a half a dozen pistols made asses out of the Nazis. And also, sweetheart, one man with courage makes a majority.

  • Sean

    Make that sipseystreetirregulars.blogspot.com.

  • Alamo

    Archangel-

    I absolutely believe that education (in the classical sense)is a protection against tyranny. I would substitute belief in individual rights for tolerance however. The most important tenet of a free society is the individual’s obligation to not infringe on the rights of another, or ask the state to do so on your behalf.

    Plenty of folks in Germany, Italy, Russia (& the republics), and China had the intellectual wherewithal to resist what was happening but not the tangible means.

    Well educated but defenseless will not maintain your liberty.

  • Frank White

    All you people who seem to think “the American policy is rubbish” have never had a criminal break down their door and rape their wife and children while they were powerless to stop it. I’ll never let my family be victims again.

  • Cernunnos

    @Sean:

    i have very much so the guts to do the same should it be required of me. however im lucky enough to not live in a country always sticking its nose into other people’s bussiness. im lucky enough to live in a country that values proper education so that we can minimize the extent of illiterate fucktards like you.

    if my country was invaded i would defend it like you wouldnt even believe, but i wouldnt take part in a war were we tried o impose our beliefs and values onto others. and should i be forced to take another person’s life i sure as hell wouldnt be talking about how many people who no longer writes home because of my awzum gunz and mazculllinty on the battlefield. i would have respected the lives i had taken as people fighting for whatever they were fighting for. even the life of a terrorist holds a value. no less value than a gun-slinging american.

    you werent simply telling the facts, you were parading them by saying how many families no longer have a father to support them financially.

  • psychosurfer

    I´ll start reading the debate now, meanwhile FlameHorse, you Totally missed the Barret M107:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TWJp14tkBlU

  • archangel

    o_0

    Exactly my point. These people have political will (anti-US forces… terrorism), and then guns.

    If the USSR populace had political will… which they didn’t because the political elites monopolised on that… then perhaps a USSR revolution in Russia would’ve taken place.

    In any case… It’d be quite awesome if you could point to me a country of educated and tolerant people living under a tyranny.

    Put it simply… if people are educated and tolerant, what’s the point in having guns for the purpose of protecting yourself against the possibility of a tyranny if it is impossible that a tyranny would arise in the first place due to a well-educated and tolerant society (who would never elect a tyrant, nor give anyone the power to rule like a tyrant) coupled with a stable system of governance which arises from a well-educated and tolerant society?

    It seems to me that owning guns is either a war-time initiative, or, for the purpose of protecting yourself in a dangerous society as cited by many of the pro-guns here. Well-educated, tolerant societies don’t seem to have any need for private gun ownership at all.

  • Steve

    With regards to the “right to bear arms” … the actual words of the US Constitution are “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” Clearly the original intent of this amendment to the Constitution is that WELL REGULATED MILITIAS (not individuals!) have the right to bear arms. That point has been lost.

  • General-Jake

    ANd one other thing id like to point out…respectfully. You Brits and Aussies and others who hate guns dont seem to realize one thing: regardless of laws CRIMINALS will carry guns. Jus because one person is anti gun and peacefull dont mean the guy creepin in your window will be. Not all crimes end in burglary. If someone was gona rape or murder a family member wouldnt you wanna blow a fuckin hole in them before they do?

  • everlast

    @Steve (215):

    clearly you need to do some research, that is merely YOUR interpretation, not the writers. Read some source material from the time immediately proceeding and following the 2 amendment, it was very clear what they meant by that.

    Hell, even more up to date, read the supreme courts ruling on the Heller Case.

    “The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists
    feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved.”

    try reading the whole thing too, thats just a sample. It goes into great detail the wording and meaning.

  • Toplessdmh

    [youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xNPGvPa9NeQ&hl=en&fs=1&]

    Most terrifying gun EVER!

  • jasperclay

    I have been around guns most of my life and the majority of the folks I know are responsible gun owners. The problem seems to be the responsible ones have guns to protect themselves from the crazies who have access to guns. If the US population wants guns to protect the country, why not turn the guns on the health insurance corporations who took over years ago. Otherwise don’t have them.

    I hate them, guns and corporations.

  • Chanchita

    HandyMandy: Agreed. Thanks for the mature debate :)

    MommaDuck (188): Yes, people kill people. Using guns.

  • smg45acp

    I own 6 out the 10.
    I wish I had all 10.
    Great list!
    Another take on this list would have “The 10 firearms that changed the World”
    This would have different guns, but would also be an interesting read.

  • Alamo

    AA-

    Educated to what level? Will everyone be required to have a Ph.D, or an M.A., or simply a high school education to construct this suit of mail that forestalls tyranny?

    An obvious question: Why is it then that the “best educated”, Ph.D level, college professors are disproportionally Marxist? (compared to their relatively uneducated fellow citizens).

    And there are no freely elected Marxist governments that I’m aware of. Moreover, Marxists have no
    qualms about achieving or maintaining their power through force.

    And how pray tell is “tolerance” in any way an obstacle to tyrants?

  • RedMan

    @ FlameHorse

    Not everyone in the U.S. is allowed to carry a gun. You must pass certain requirements and not be a felon. All people should not be allowed any weapon unless they are trained in using it. The reason certain countries have banned guns is because people believe the guns kills people instead of the person shooting it. I have 1 gun and will use it for defense only. I also have other weapons I can use at an instant. I hate violence but will defend my family, friends, or anyone who needs help. This list was cool though. Maybe the world would be different without guns. Actually yeah it would be because America would ot exist. The true Natives would’ve won.

  • archangel

    208 Sean

    “One man with courage makes a majority”. Nice phrase actually =]. I don’t doubt that at all. In fact, anyone who falls in this category could probably be deemed a hero depending on the circumstance. I read the blog (took a while to find it) but this man’s story and his peers is quite extraordinary. I would not hesitate to call them heroes. I understand too that they needed guns to obviously achieve their goals.

    I’m not anti-gun. I would not hesitate to use a gun if foreign invaders came crashing into my country trying to oppress my freedoms. I would try to take down as many of them as possible.

    However, I guess the query a lot of people have with the US and their gun laws is the absence of a war. These men were under invasion by Nazi Germany. What enemy does the US have for its citizens to bear arms to use against? Criminals?

    I would have to honestly say that if I went to the US, I would probably own a gun myself. But not because I find it a right, but rather, that I would find it practical and almost necessary to own one given the environment and criminal possibilities there.

    The contention is that these gun laws themselves fuel that environment, thus ending in an endless circle of guns for all… criminals… people need to defend themselves… people wanting free guns to defend themselves with… thus guns for all… and repeats again.

    I guess the reason why Australians are mostly against such gun laws is that when they took away free private gun ownership in Australia, it also took out a vast chunk of the criminal environment and that cycle. So now, I don’t expect randoms to own a gun and enter my house to try and murder my family… that would just be extremely unlikely. No one really owns a gun around here to do that.

    Not to say that it can’t happen. However, with Australia… its more an exception rather than the norm. I’d prefer it to stay the exception. To many of us, it seems that US gun laws only reinforce such criminal behaviour in that cycle as a norm. Something we would prefer not to have. And I guess we do have much lower criminal rates than the US which, factually, has a very high criminal rate compared to other like-countries.

  • Moloch1123

    @Banana (101): Actually, people who are properly educated on the issues of safety and security, and who practice those things with self-discipline, never need fear an accident in their home from a gun.

    So, let’s carry your idea a bit further. I am nearly a walking weapon myself due to my size, strength, and training. So, should I tie one hand and one leg behind my back to make the fight between myself and my assailant a fair one? Hell no! I want every advantage I can have in a fight! If that means I have a gun too, then so be it. I will use it, and use it gladly. Heck, I may even be tempted to go kick the sorry jackass who woke me up from a sound sleep in the balls before he dies, just on principle.

    Screw criminals, the whole lot of them! In fact, I say we take the Chinese approach with the prison overpopulation problem here. When it gets too crowded, take a bunch out on the courtyard, shoot them dead, and mail a bill for the bullets to the family.

  • kOUSSY

    the ak-47 is a bb gun

  • Roddack

    I would say everyone has a fundamental right to bear arms. That does not mean they have the right to initiate force against another individual.

    I think the right to bear arms is essential in at the very minimum as a check against potential abuse by governments.

    I would have to say though the right to bear arms I feel should just be an extension of an individual to own or posses anything as long as they have justly acquired it.

  • flgh

    Funny that Switzerland also have a “right to bear arms” but Not the gun crimes

  • Randall

    @Alamo (200):

    Nice try, asshole. But you’ve already shown your political leanings with you bullshit about “college professors being disproportionally Marxist”—which is not true, and is a common bit of right wing propaganda which despite being wheezy, tired, and inaccurate, is still trotted out on all occasions regardless of relevancy, let alone truth. I suspect, then, that all this innocent lil’ BS about the gun owners you know is just that—BS.

    “Maybe your ranting will convince people how sick our society”

    Maybe it will! If only it were so, and if only more spoke out against the obvious sicknesses in their respective societies, we’d live in a happier, kinder world. But as ever, those who bad-mouth the inherent sicknesses in their own societies are mocked (as you are attempting to do to me here) or are labeled or hounded into silence.

    But no, we’re okay with barking about the sicknesses of OTHER societies–but our own? No, we don’t allow that.

    “is and everyone will conform to your vision- whatever that is.”

    I already made that clear, in my first posting. Letting go of this sick LOVE AFFAIR with the gun. Toning it DOWN. Acting like ADULTS about it instead of smitten children. Admitting as a society, as groups, as individuals, that while we consider it a right and a necessity to keep firearms, we ought not to be happy about it nor should we romanticize it.

    “Certainly we should all be obligated to fit into your idyllic “healthy” society.”

    You know what, prick? Try peddling this sour and lame attempt to cast me as some kind of dictatorial type elsewhere. I believe there is an inherent sickness in my society. I never ONCE said that said society or the people in it should be OBLIGATED or FORCED to cleave to my view of it. I am simply speaking out about it. It’s up to the people IN our society to listen, or not to listen.

    “You see it- everyone else is blind (or in denial).”

    No, not everyone. Just assholes such as yourself.

    “You are visionary…………”

    Well in fact, I am. So glad you recognized that. But no, this particular question is not relevant to my visionary status. I am simply speaking out against a social ill that I feel debilitates this country. It’s clear for anyone to see just by looking around—look at this goddamn LIST for instance—note the number of comments from people who have extolled this or that weapon, as though they were talking about the virtues of the new models from Detroit (or in this day and age Tokyo or Seoul). The LOVE for the gun and our glorification of it as a THING, as a concept, is an inherent sickness of our society. I believe in the second amendment as a guarantee of a right to bear arms; what I do NOT believe, however, is that we are right in our attitude and behavior IN REGARDS to firearms, which is manifestly and *across the board* childish and dependent in the extreme.

  • archangel

    222 Alamo

    Ah, fair question indeed! I have no specific threshold to provide other than the minimum requirements for understanding the governance processes that govern your society. I, for one, would not be able to cast a well-informed vote unless I understand the issues and are able to critically assess the initiatives being put forward by my government. I need education to understand this. How are the Afghan peoples supposed to vote the most competent and proper person as their president if they don’t even know what constitutes that, or at least, understand the promises and policies being put forward by candidates? An uneducated society does not have the capacity to critically assess itself, and thus, figure out the best way forward for its own benefit.

    But please don’t dissect my point. I for one don’t think that mere education can stop tyranny. There is the possibility of tyranny of the majority afterall. As educated as Australians were, we oppressed non-whites way back with some intolerant policies.

    That’s why education + tolerance is an awesome chain mail against tyranny.

    You asked how tolerance is an obstacle to tyrants. I pose this question… if the Germans had been tolerant of the Jews back then, how would Hitler gain the support against them (Jews) and initiate the holocaust? If Saddam was tolerant, then why would he clamp down on political opposition? It would be against his disposition.

    “An obvious question: Why is it then that the “best educated”, Ph.D level, college professors are disproportionally Marxist? (compared to their relatively uneducated fellow citizens).”

    Seriously surprised by this. I have no idea were you come from but that’s just out of the ordinary. As far as I know, the vast majority of such peoples are educated and tolerant, tending towards liberal values. But in any case, there is nothing wrong with some of the values of Marxism as long as the pursuit of such values remain peaceful. Marxism itself is nothing more (at the moment) than critical theory that points out the flaws of capitalism because capitalism is not perfect.

  • BigMike

    I don’t agree with the premise of the bonus question. All people have the right to live therefore they have the right to protect themselves therefore they have the right to own and carry and use firearms. Those that live in a place where these rights have been usurped need to assert and reclaim those rights by any and every means necessary.

  • ianz09

    @flamehorse (168): Why not just pull out all the stops and make Top 10 Most Controversial Issues?

    Abortion!
    God!
    Politics!
    2nd Amendment rights!
    More conspiracy theories!
    Aliens!
    Ghosts!
    Bigfoot!
    Hoaxes(?)!
    Legalizing marijuana!
    Marijuana!
    Drugs!
    Alcohol!
    Death penalty!
    Corporal punishment!
    What constitutes child abuse?!
    Abortion!
    God! Again!
    The Holy Grail!
    Evolution!
    Uh…
    GOD!

    I think that one will instigate the living crap out of everyone. ;)

  • jubyduk

    @Randall: had to read through a depressing s**tload of comments to get to something that reflected my point of view. Was worth it.

    As a Canadian, drowning under a tsunami of US culture glorifying guns & associated violence, I feel compelled by the debate.

    In the end, the US chose a path and that has created the current situation where I think it would be foolish to attempt to do away with the right to bear (fire)arms.

    The US has a higher murder rate (and gun death rate) oper capita than Canada, UK, Australia, New Zealand but as discussed at length, the number of guns per capita is not the cause. The cause is the 200 years history of (practically) unrestricted private gun ownership (of almost any type) and the effect this has had on US society.

    From this country (and other western democracies, no doubt), we look upon the result in the U.S. and are glad we have a MUCH lesser chance of dying victims of homicide and accidental gun shots than american residents.

    We just ask that the U.S. not export this most particular trait. Be proud or ashamed of it, we don’t care. Just keep it to yourselves. And a lot of us simply choose to NOT spend our tourist dollars in the U.S. out of brick-s**itting fear of your gun-toting / shoot-first-ask-questios-later gun culture.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_gun_ownership

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate

  • evad1089

    I got bored half way down reading comments. So I just decided it would be more prudent to toss in my two cents.

    As with many items in the Constitution, the right to bear arms is meant to be a check on state power cohersion. A gun is a tool and should be treated as such. I don’t take a hack saw to my neighbor, why would I take a gun to them?

  • ianz09

    @Randall (229): Boy oh boy Randall, you weren’t kidding when you told me you like arguing! lol

  • evad1089

    *the state’s (as in any governments) “legal” use of cohersion

  • ianz09

    @evad1089 (233): I see your point, but as an opposing viewpoint may say: Guns were invented and improved with the intention of use as a weapon. I wouldn’t consider them tools, so much as self-defense mechanisms. However, many people don’t use them as DEFENSE so much as OFFENSE. Wherein the problem lies.

  • That Guy From Pennsylvania

    Roddack gets it!

    flgh: Among other things, Switzerland never had Prohibition or experienced huge waves of immigration and was thus spared the rise of the Mafia and its cousins imported from abroad. (Japan, China,Mexico, Russia, etc.)

  • Alamo

    Surprised? You shouldn’t be. Marxism “in theory” requires all to swear allegiance to the state; non-conformists are marginalized at best, more likely disposed of. And yet, the enlightened, educated, progressive, elite however you want to characterize them, tend to be the most vociferous Marxists.

    Everything is wrong with Marxism (at least in the real world) in that individual rights are defenestrated. Tyranny of the majority in some cases, of the minority in others.

    The fact is there is always a cadre of the intellectually superior who fervently believe that they know what is best for their inferiors, and that the individual should serve the state for “the greater good”- As determined by the self-appointed elite.

    Tolerance is a term that is bandied about to the point that the word is useless. I have NO obligation to tolerate any behavior or action. I am obligated however to not infringe on the individual rights of any fellow citizen, and I have a right to require the same. I can speak out against behaviors, policy, or action to my heart’s content- some will say that is intolerant. What a free society must require is that I cannot enforce my will upon another, or compel the government to do that on my behalf. Oh, and if you believe that “the vast majorities of such people are…..tolerant” (they are educated by definition), go before a college leftist professor and express an ideology that conflicts with their accepted dogma. “Tolerance” can be a narrowly defined path indeed.

  • evad1089

    @ianz09

    Very true, however (just a personal belief) the best way to stop someone with a gun is not to remove their legal means of acquiring one; it is to have one yourself. Not in the aspect of a shoot out, but in the aspect that a person who is participating in cohersion will be much less likely to commit a crime when they know the victim has the means to fight back. Acquiring an illegal items, be it drugs or guns, is very easy, and will always be very easy. Thirty years and billions of dollars spent here in the US have done nothing to stop drug use. I don’t see any reason why it would be different with guns (or hacksaws for that matter).

  • AmericanTusk.com

    I love the debate. As for all the people who think that the American people should not have guns, it is our SECOND amendment that ensures the protection of our FIRST amendment rights.

    “The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.” (Thomas Jefferson)

  • Brian

    The “militia” argument is completely moot for two reasons. First, as noted earlier, at the time the Constitution was written, militia was defined as all able-bodied men between 18 and 65.

    Secondly, the Bill of Rights lists individual rights except for the tenth which states that all non-enumerated powers and rights reside with the states and the people. This interpretation, that the 2nd amendment is an individual right of US citizens, was upheld by the US Supreme Court in the Heller decision last year.

  • undaunted warrior

    Randell nice to see you fireing on all 8 as useual, my gin and tonics were not wasted this afternoon, some good comments, way to go pal.

    @ianz09(235) You have not seen him in overdrive yet, dont mess with that dude, you will always come off 2 nd best.

  • Cambrexia

    While I disagree with guns as a whole, and would rather nobody had them, I think that the right to bear arms is immensely important.

    If there is a revolution, and hopefully there will be, I want a gun during it.

    I guess it comes down to that I don’t trust my government enough for me to not want a gun.

  • Randall

    @undaunted warrior (242):

    “…my gin and tonics were not wasted this afternoon…”

    WHERE’S MINE??!!!

    “…some good comments, way to go pal.”

    Thank you, thank you… bless you, citizen.

  • ziegenbartami

    Some inaccuracies I found, and things I think ought to be changed.

    factual inaccuracies:
    #9: it mentions ‘.40 Sig’ as one of the calibers–there’s no such caliber as ‘.40 Sig; there’s .40 S&W and .357 Sig, so the author prolly just got those mixed up
    #8: the Mauser k98 has a 5-round magazine, not 8 as claimed in the article. the m1 Garand is the only rifle i know of with an 8-round magazine…. Read More
    #7: mentions “800 grain powder load”…800 grain refers to the bullet’s mass, not the powder load

    list order:
    #6: definitely overrated, i’m not sure why it’s on this list. sure, it’s a cool gun, but it’s not much different from any other modern revolver aside from the caliber, and it didn’t have any really big impact on history. it’s only on this list due it’s popularity from the “Dirty Harry” movie series.
    #5: the Mauser model 1893 may have … Read Morebeen the first to use the mauser bolt style, but the model 1898/ k98 had much more historical impact due to its use by German in BOTH world wars, as well as its production by other countries even after WW2 such as Turkey and Yugoslavia.
    #1: while the Colt 1911 is undoubtedly a great handgun, being the standard US sidearm for over half a century, it doesn’t belong in the #1 spot.
    #2: the AK-47 deserves to be #1, due to its service longevity, the vast quantities produced, and its impact on world history, particularly in 3rd world countries.

    FWIW, I’m an American and own 3 guns: a Remington 870 shotgun, an AR-15 rifle, and a Springfield XDm-40 handgun.
    Along with the right to life, ought to come the right to defend that life against those who would wish to take it. I fully support the right to own firearms and carry firearms on one’s person.

  • Lerker

    It would hardly be a controversial posting without a 10,000 word, eye rolling, spittle spraying “Randall Rant”.

  • Davy

    Randall sure knows how to fight.

  • Alamo

    My, my Randall you do have issues.

    A little psych analysis of my own: Your self-image seems to rely a great deal upon your “dominance” on this little site. He who must not be challenged! Well if it makes you feel better. Substituting random “assholes” for cogent argument is rather transparent however.

    Of course most revealing of all is your inability to resist asserting that you are indeed visionary. Well done! I’m sure you and your “parent’s basement” acolytes will no doubt have a major impact on society- as soon as enough people come here to “Listverse” to learn at your knee.

    Lonely must be the path of one so gifted. Good luck Randall.

  • everlast

    best not to bother with Randall, not matter what the argument, if you disagree with him, you’re wrong.
    Apparently he is flawless and infallible…lol

  • Storm

    First of all, while I applaud you for making a list about firearms, you seem to have gotten your knowledge about guns from an “all about guns!” book.

    Second of all, most of the people commenting on this list seem to have all thier knowledge of guns from video games and the mainstream media.

    When the second ammendment says “a well regulated milita”, do YOU know what that means? A militia, as seen throughout american history, is made up of civilains who own thier own guns and were ready to use them if need be. Basically when this country was still young, all these private gun owners (i.e. just about everybody) would get together, have marksmanship training and make plans on what to do if thier town was attacked. Today we have the police and a regular army, but “the well regulated militia” still, in a way, remains in the form of plain private gun owners willing to defend life and liberty.

  • Spiff17

    Randall: Bravo! Your post was the first truly rational thing posted on here regarding the firearms debate so far. As a Canadian I can tell you that like it or not the way you described America is how most non-American countries view it. Though I’ve never thought of it or seen it explained so concisely before. Whether or not all American’s are aware of it or have had personal experiences that make it apparent, the world views the US as a gun and violence obsessed society. Any Americans are welcome to argue that fact but its the sad truth regardless. I certainly do not hate or even dislike the US as a whole, so please don’t assume thats what I’m saying. I just agree with Randall that your gun problem is not constitutional but societal. Unfortunately I don’t see that message catching on too fast.

  • Spiff17

    Sorry, I shouldn’t have said the first rational thing. There were others with good thoughts as well. Randall just introduced a new concept to the discussion that I thought hit the nail on the head.

  • pestomama

    This list is very depressing to me. Some of the comments and the number of them is even more depressing. I am a U.S. citizen and I don’t understand America’s love of guns. It is sickening. I am also 68 years old so I have heard every excuse there is. I wish every gun in the world would simply disappear.

  • Stephen

    Alamo, we’re a gun loving society. Accept it, deal with it.

    Randall, calm down. I can almost see you frothing at the mouth over this.

    Ban guns? No

    Educate people more? Yes

    Redo American Education system because it sucks beyond anything? YES PLEASE

    And finally, Parents. Take some damn responsibility, and stop expecting everyone else to fix your problems. That goes for everyone. I see too many people just sitting on their ass expecting the government to fix their life. YOU need to learn more, and to take hold of your own life. It’s not anyone elses responsiblity to raise your kids or pay your bills.

  • Randall

    @Alamo (238):

    “Marxism “in theory” requires all to swear allegiance to the state;”

    In fact it does not.

    But then, I’m a former college professor myself–what do *I* know about it, eh? But then, I’m not nor was I ever a Marxist, either. Whoa! A college prof who’s not a Marxist—must be another one of those weird exceptions! OH, BUT WAIT…. I only have about…. fifty f**king close friends who are college professors in various fields, from the sciences to the arts–and at least twice that many acquaintances who are faculty… and not ONE of them is a Marxist! Well Whaddya Know? Ah… but must be more of my anecdotalism again!

    “non-conformists are marginalized at best, more likely disposed of.”

    Same can be said of a right-wing paradise of intolerance and misery, such as the sort that I’m sure many in conservative circles would just LOVE for your country to implement.

    “And yet, the enlightened, educated, progressive, elite however you want to characterize them, tend to be the most vociferous Marxists.”

    And, again… bullshit. The fact that there IS a cadre of Marxists in some institutions of higher learning (but by no means all, nor is it by any stretch the epidemic that right wing loudmouths pretend it to be) is more a reflection of the distaste with which many of an enlightened mind view capitalism; I would agree with some of their conclusions if by no means their chosen political philosophy… but in any case, it does not amount to some kind of inherent moral failing of the intellectual elite. Nor is it expressive of some desire for a totalitarian make-over of our modern world. The number of dogmatic Marxists in the universities around the country is overexaggerated in the extreme. I can think of *one* that I know OF, personally. Though of course he’s not alone, but he’s in the minority, that’s for damn sure.

    I am certainly no defender of Marxism, being a believer in liberal democracy and a free market (albeit a regulated one). But then most of the intellectuals I know agree with me or less. Some may lean more towards socialistic ideas (but not all) but as I say, dogmatic Marxists there is NOT a glut of.

    “The fact is there is always a cadre of the intellectually superior who fervently believe that they know what is best for their inferiors,”

    Sounds like something out of a trashy novel.

    In fact, there are people of dictatorial bents from all political persuasions and classes. To lay it, as a vice, strictly or primarily at the feet of the intellectual elite is precisely the kind of anti-intellectualism that we’ve come to expect from the manipulative, bullshitting, kowtowing right wing mouthpieces who in fact would like nothing better than to impart their OWN dictatorial ideas about a “proper society” to the rest of us, and even force those ideas on us. And the fact is we’ve seen more evidence of this from the RIGHT in the last 30+ years than we have from the Left, and that goes for overseas as well.

    “Oh, and if you believe that “the vast majorities of such people are…..tolerant” (they are educated by definition), go before a college leftist professor and express an ideology that conflicts with their accepted dogma.”

    I’m willing to bet ANYTHING that you have in fact NEVER done this nor do you KNOW anyone who’s done it. You’re mouthing a right wing talking point and nothing more.

    I’ve never known a student to be victimized or punished by a “leftist” prof because said student didn’t agree with him or her, or the prof’s stated political or economic ideas. This is the typical nonsense fantasy of those who, such as yourself, Alamo, actively despise intellectuals, and feel they MUST be tyrannical people who refuse to tolerate dissent. This is propaganda from the Right, and nothing else. The TRUTH is that the vast majority of profs tolerate viewpoints of all kinds of varying natures because it is their business to impart a love of learning and discourse, and they are more concerned with a student being OPEN to learning than recruiting students to some secret agenda of leftist idealism. The only time I’ve known anyone to be troubled by a student’s “challenges” is when said student has demonstrated a clear and stubborn willfullness to stay within the bounds of pre-determined viewpoints, ignoring or dismissing all others regardless of their viability or favorability. That kind of attitude is fine in personal life, but in academic pursuits it denotes a close mind which remains ignorantly shut to any other philosophies or points of view. And this is a vice of students who come from BOTH sides of the political fence.

    In short, Alamo, you’re full of it about this, just as you were full of it about your little gun-owning friends.

  • Alamo

    -I wish it would never rain during my vacation.
    -I wish the trees never lost their leaves.
    -I wish broccoli tasted like french fires.
    -I wish everyone loved their fellow man.

    68 years is a long time to hold onto childhood.

    No guns? Fine. How about wishing that the twice convicted felon outside your door wasn’t trying to force his way in.

    See how that works for you.

  • Alamo

    But then, I’m a former college professor myself–

    Would’ve NEVER guessed…………

  • Sander

    To answer your question: No, no untrained person should have the right to own a gun or firearm or whatever weapon. They belong in the hands of qualified and trained people (military, police, etc.) to protect the common good of society. “The right to bear arms” stems from an era where there was danger on every corner and the original inhabitants of the North American continent were – rightfully so – pissed off by the settlers who took their land that they were a serious threat.

    O, and that minigun from Predator and T2 should’ve been on the list…

  • Randall

    @Stephen (254):

    “Randall, calm down. I can almost see you frothing at the mouth over this.”

    Hardly. I just happen to hate assholes. Sadly we often have a glut of these on the internet.

    But that’s just the way I talk, Stephen. I am an abrasive loudmouth by nature and choice. Blame it on my mom and dad.

  • Randall

    @Alamo (257):

    And who would’ve guessed that you were a prick just because you call yourself “Alamo”? Oh wait, *I* would have!

  • Lazy One

    I agree that private ownership of arms needs to be curtailed and abolished. After all, we tried that here in the US in Chicago, and it worked perfectly, wiping crime out forever and ever. Really.

  • everlast

    @Lazy One (261):

    dont forget DC too, before the ban was over turned… lol

  • Randall

    @pestomama (253):

    Bless you. Well said.

  • archangel

    255 Randall

    Thanks Randall! Could not have said it better myself! Being in Australia, we have a few professors and tutors of the leftist and critical bent… but despite my liberal internationalist tendencies, the tolerance between our viewpoints and the acceptance of peaceful difference allows us to converse constructively about international issues, perhaps coming to a much better conclusion sometimes. In any case, I never get marked down or scolded for having non-conformist viewpoints, or ones different to the marker or professor… this applies to all learning institutions in Australia. Freedom of speech right? =]

  • Storm

    “To answer your question: No, no untrained person should have the right to own a gun or firearm or whatever weapon. They belong in the hands of qualified and trained people (military, police, etc.) to protect the common good of society. “The right to bear arms” stems from an era where there was danger on every corner and the original inhabitants of the North American continent were – rightfully so – pissed off by the settlers who took their land that they were a serious threat.”

    So only the military and police should be allowed to defend thier lives? Well, that’s very democratic of you! Civilians DO regularly get proper training to use thier firearms. In most states in the US it’s required to go through at minimum a saftey course before you can be issued a carry permit or a hunting license. Besides, gun control has only been a tool of tyrants to disarm thier subjects. The first gun control law in the US was one prohibiting recently-freed blacks from owning weapons. Look at soviet russia, communist china, and Nazi germany’s gun control laws, the were all about “public saftey”.

    We still live in a fairly dangerous society, and taking away the ability of the common person to defend thier life and libery will only make it more dangerous, not to mention less free.

  • Storm

    And, for the record, the founders idn’t have indians in mind when they penned the 2nd Ammendment, they were thinking of Government, you know the whole “tree of liberty” thing Thomas Jefferson came up with? If you knew anything about the writers of the constitution you would know that.

  • oouchan

    It’s entirely too serious around here. Need some silliness!

    Princess Vespa: I ain’t shooting this thing, I hate guns.
    her hair gets singed by a laser
    Princess Vespa: My hair, he shot my hair. Son of a …!
    she starts shooting

    ….and now back to your regular scheduled debate!

  • knicky

    The original intent of the right to bear arms was the prevention of an undefended military occupation. The founding fathers hoped that a “Well Regulated Militia” would prevent a monarchyor an occupation. If the right vote were taken away then the voters would still be able to defend themselves and assert their desire for self governance. I am a vehemently non-violent man. but I have never had “Security Forces” invade my home.

    I hate that the free ownership of killing devices is the cause of so much death, sadness and evil, but I still do not know of an other way for the “people” to protect themselves
    against oppression. The founding fathers left us with a quandry that challenges our humanity.

    the current and past governments of the USA have certainly deprived occupied countries of these rights.

    tough question!!

    N

  • GTT

    @Randall (132) and all your ensuing comments:

    Thank you! I have always been fascinated (and frankly, more than a little scared) by the absolute love of guns you find in the States. I think I have mentioned before that while my family is Peruvian, I grew up in Venezuela and went to college in the States so I´ve been able to observe it both from inside and out. You can see it clearly here in the comments. People who brag about how many guns they own, how fun it is to shoot, or the occasional veteran bragging about how many people he´s killed in combat. It´s a gun-loving orgy in these commnents and to be perfectly honest, I´m a little repulsed by it.

    @archangel (198): I was going to mention the civilian “militia” that Chavez is supplying guns to but you beat me to it. A very sad state of affairs, let me tell you…

    @General-Jake (216): No offense, but remembering your own admission of drug dealing and other crimes, I wouldnt exactly include you in the “responsible” gun owning group.

  • Jakkson

    Honestly, I like my right to human arms better. Bear arms are probably just really hairy, and I couldn’t handle the kind of responsibility that a pair of huge claws would come with.

  • Alamo

    Hate to disappoint Randall, but I am more of a libertarian, or classical liberal.

    For a former professor you certainly had a limited pool of acquaintances. Through graduate school (economics) I met two avowed Marxists and one sympathetic. The fellow I took class with was actually very entertaining and quite willing to admit Marxism’s failures in practice. My point is irrefutable- You will find more Marxists in academia than any other societal subgroup. I never said ALL PROFESSORS ARE MARXISTS, or implied that.

    Please point out the history of a right-winged dictatorial state that enforced their societal norms on the populace, let alone murdered millions like the progressive Marxist/Leninist tyrants have.

    Yes, I have challenged a professor who threatened to dismiss me. They are easy to find. Your “open to learning” proviso is a broadly utilized smokescreen, that can just as easily be characterized as “unwilling to accept the professor’s point of view”.

    Again your ability to divine is amazing. I am anti-intellectual? Actually I am quite fond of intellectual pursuit, am married to a prof’s daughter, and count many Ph.Ds as friends. Intellect does not gall me in the least. Those who regard their intelligence and/or education as a license to determine what is best for others less generously endowed- Yeah, I got a problem with that.

    Oh, and Prof, having read Marx & Engels, Das Kapital and the Manifesto, they do call for an obligation to the state and reduce the status of the individual; the worker is defined by his service to the state. If you don’t know this, then either I understand why you are no longer a professor, or you obviously taught “music theory”.

  • OptimusChrist

    Certainly one of my favorite lists of all time. Great job to everyone involved in it.

  • Phender_Bender

    In the Glock section there is a typo, you wrote “.40 sig” there is no such thing, there is .357 sig and .40 S&W.

  • Randall

    @Alamo (248):

    “My, my Randall you do have issues.”

    With asshats such as yourself? Yes, indeed I do.

    “A little psych analysis of my own:”

    What do you mean by “of your own”? You’re the ONLY one who’s been doing that. Which, again, is typical of people who have no REAL answer when challenged. They instead bite at the heels of the messenger. You tried some BS “psychoanalyzing” earlier, and I called you on it—and here you’re trying it again.

    “Your self-image seems to rely a great deal upon your “dominance” on this little site.”

    Hardly, moron. My self-image is nicely fulfilled by success and happiness in my personal life. I do THIS for fun, and because *someone* has to fight the bullshit spewed by the liars and crumbs of the world. I therefore perform a public service and amuse myself on occasion to boot.

    “Substituting random “assholes” for cogent argument is rather transparent however.”

    It would be, if that’s what I was doing. But in fact I’ve given you PLENTY of cogent argument. I wrote an extremely lengthy op piece here which was rife with it. You, on the other hand, in turn have spouted nothing but right wing propaganda points about “Marxists” and the like.

    “Of course most revealing of all is your inability to resist asserting that you are indeed visionary.”

    I can’t help what mom AND Jesus told me!

    Butthead.

    “Well done! I’m sure you and your “parent’s basement” acolytes will no doubt have a major impact on society”

    Yawn. Nothing better than passe digs at my imaginary living arrangements?

    I may very well have some impact on society. Or I may very well have no impact at all. I can’t control that. I can only speak out, and speak the truth. But… at least I try. And no, this is not my only venue for that. I don’t even consider this a venue… as I say, this is for fun, for me.

    You, on the other hand, sound like just another close-minded ideologue.

  • archiealt

    @Steve (215):

    The world would be a much better place if you went away pretty sharpish.

  • archiealt

    @Steve (215):

    Apologies, that was meant @Sean (209):

  • damien_karras

    An interesting take on private (legal) ownership of guns: a buddy of mine, who is a Newark, NJ cop, told me that a private owner can have all the training in the world when it comes to firing a gun, but that he personally could remember five recent incidents where the victim had been killed with his own gun because when it came right down to it, they couldn’t pull the trigger. Now we have one dead law-abiding citizen and one alive-and-well criminal with TWO guns.

  • agginym

    Talanic had the best comment that i have read on this list so far. especially the part about funding education and seeing a drop in crime. Thats the biggest reason for the through the roof violent crime rates in this country, not the fact that someone owns a gun. also making guns illegal isnt going to keep them out of the hands of the criminal, its going to keep the upstanding citizen from defending him or herself when the criminal comes.

  • FATSEXY

    I knew that this would be a gun list by someone who didn’t know about guns.

    The Glock comes chambered in .40 Sig? Does it really??

    You can get a good GI model 1911 for around $500.

  • General-Jake

    No offense taken GTT. Im not a responsible guy. But rmember the drug lord list from the other day? THOSE guys and guys like em will always be armed. Shouldnt the good people be too?

  • undaunted warrior

    @Alamo You have been warned many a time in the abovementioned comments not to tangle with Randall, when he is on the ball he will pick you up chew and spit out the remains. Ive been on this site for a looooong time and nobody has ever come out tops against him.

  • aquadog

    FREE MAN:
    That logic is insane, and I don’t think I’ll ever understand it. The right to bear arms has never been an issue in any country that I’ve been to, and I’ve been to plenty. It’s just not even worth talking or thinking about. It baffles me that there are actually a few people defending that right. Only in America right.

  • Morgan

    If we’re going to ban guns because a few people have accidents, maybe we should ban cars to. The government is not our nanny, and if the people are disarmed that will only mean trouble. Not only will criminals be the only ones to have guns, but the military and police will be the only ones to have guns. That is bad.

    Look at Chicago. They’ve had a handgun ban for twenty-seven years. Has crime gone down as expected? Nope. It’s gone up. Because innocent, law-abiding citizens cannot protect themselves from terrorist thugs.

    We cannot trust the government to always be our friend. If the people cannot defend themselves, then we are not citizens – we are subjects.

    If the people fear their government, there is tyranny. If a government fears their people, there is liberty.

  • Spocker

    I liked reading the list with the ‘R. Lee Ermey’ voice in my head.

  • Alamo

    ….as I say, this is for fun, for me. >And time consuming!!!!!!!<

    I read the list on occasion, a momentary diversion. Someone might think you are paid for this Randall, what with your continuous presence and obsessive commenting. Success no doubt.

    I am glad that the fact that it rained on one of my vacation days bored me enough to engage you in your life's passion. You're welcome.

    To pass one's self off as a lion of intellectualism while continuously employing cheap invective and sophomoric name-calling no doubt lends you weight with your fans here (you know, the basement dwellers) but I'm sure it engendered no reputation for gravitas in the academic world. Is this a new development?

    My reference to your influence was of course facetious and I'm sure obvious to everyone- except for you; poor misguided soul. I'm SURE you are much more of a force in the other venues you speak of- pity you waste so much time here.

    Your ferocity, hidden on the internets is telling. Since you indicated earlier a willingness to wager; I'd bet your not nearly as much of a big mouth without this warm cloak of anonymity.

  • MadMonkey

    Nice, I’ve owned three of those :)

  • Maximuz04

    very interesting list, didnt know much about guns

  • ianz09

    @undaunted warrior (241): I believe it. I usually kick back and read his debates. I think I’m on his good side, though. If I recall, a couple threads ago (College Courses?), we made light humor, but I’m pretty sure I have yet to give Randall a reason to hate me. So by default I guess that makes us cool.

  • everlast

    @damien_karras (277):

    there are lots of cases where police officers were shot by their own firearms too. So what’s your point?

    @FATSEXY (279):
    no, there isnt any gun made in .40 sig, it should read .40 S&W. (not sure if you’re serious or being sarcastic)

  • Mtatazela

    @braaaap (51):
    Rappers make people kill…@Randall (132):
    Randall you are a respected, knowledgeable and well educated contributer, but starting every comment lately with “Shut up Folks” is arrogant and totally uncalled for.

  • Randall

    @Alamo (271):

    “Hate to disappoint Randall, but I am more of a libertarian, or classical liberal.”

    The only disappointment I’m suffering here is that you won’t shut up. But I can deal.

    And now a libertarian is a “classical liberal” huh? News to me. In fact I’d daresay that’s news to everybody.

    “For a former professor you certainly had a limited pool of acquaintances.”

    Nope. Many and varied. Ivy League and otherwise. Big schools, little schools… major universities and tiny colleges. Guess again.

    “Through graduate school (economics) I met two avowed Marxists and one sympathetic.”

    Uh, need it be pointed out (or are you that dimwitted) that one might EXPECT to find Marxists, if one was going to find them ANYWHERE, first and foremost in economics departments? I would have thought this was a no-brainer.

    BUT LOOK at what you just said. In GRAD SCHOOL you met at most THREE Marxists, one of whom was just a fellow traveller. I’ve worked in academia for TWENTY YEARS and I know ONE. Granted, I don’t know many economists. But at any rate, that’s three for you, one for me. HARDLY an epidemic, and HARDLY a demonstrative subset of slavering Marxist ideologues.

    “My point is irrefutable- You will find more Marxists in academia than any other societal subgroup.”

    And just HOW is that point made “irrefutable” just because in GRAD SCHOOL you knew of three Marxist ECONOMISTS? Your logic fails me. In fact, it fails, period.

    “I never said ALL PROFESSORS ARE MARXISTS, or implied that.”

    IN FACT you implied that Marxism was in essence rife in academia. No, not ALL profs, but you were making the case that it was an endemic affair in academia. It is not, and in fact it is HIGHLY overexaggerated.

    And so WHAT is your point about this, anyway? We never even GOT to that.

    “Please point out the history of a right-winged dictatorial state that enforced their societal norms on the populace, let alone murdered millions like the progressive Marxist/Leninist tyrants have.”

    Well, some would bring up Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan and perhaps Fascist Italy in this regard.

    But of course, this is a pointless issue to debate on, as I made it clear that I am no Marxist, nor do I defend Marxism. I believe the left wing tyrannies of history have been monstrous horrors. This is hardly something that anyone could or should doubt.

    But certainly any number of right wing tyrannical states throughout history have brutally oppressed their people and murdered them enmasse, though no, rarely in the numbers that the huge left wing totalitarian states have. But if you’re going to pretend that fascist Spain or fascist Greece of the 70s, or the fascist states of Latin America in the 60s, 70s and 80s were just garden spots of tolerance and fun, then you’re out of your freakin’ mind. Argentina? Chile? El Salvador, before the leftists took over (and made it a leftist tyranny)… I could go on and on. Thousand upon thousands of dissidents disappeared and killed. AND yes, “societal norms” forced upon the populace.

    South Africa, in the bad old days of white rule?

    Come on, Alamo. You’re steeped in bullshit.

    “Yes, I have challenged a professor who threatened to dismiss me.”

    AH HA… so now we get at the crux of the matters. YOU had a personal experience.

    Well who’s to say whether your version of matters is right, or whether you were guilty of other issues? Only you, as we speak.

    “They are easy to find.”

    No, in fact, they are not. You had a bad experience both sides of which we will NEVER hear. I have worked in academia for 20 years and never come across an instance of it.

    “Again your ability to divine is amazing. I am anti-intellectual? Actually I am quite fond of intellectual pursuit, am married to a prof’s daughter, and count many Ph.Ds as friends. Intellect does not gall me in the least.”

    Mighty hard to tell that from the way you’ve expressed yourself here, indignantly decrying the Marxist plague that you claim exists in higher numbers in academia than anywhere else in the civilized world… which is not only BS, but also begs the question—just what is your POINT in making that claim?

    “Those who regard their intelligence and/or education as a license to determine what is best for others less generously endowed- Yeah, I got a problem with that.”

    Good for you. I’ve got a problem with people such as yourself who draw a synechdoche from one single experience in their life, and try to pass that off as the norm when it is, in fact, nothing of the kind.

    “Oh, and Prof, having read Marx & Engels, Das Kapital and the Manifesto, they do call for an obligation to the state and reduce the status of the individual;”

    Re-read the assertion you made which prompted my response. You did not phrase it at all in the same fashion.

    “the worker is defined by his service to the state.”

    True. On the other hand, one might espouse it as a virtue if the CITIZEN of a democracy thought more about HIS or HER service to the “state” (i.e., his or her fellow citizens AND society as a whole) rather than themselves now and then.

    “If you don’t know this, then either I understand why you are no longer a professor, or you obviously taught “music theory”.”

    Ha. Look jack, I’ve FORGOTTEN more than you’ll ever know. The reason I quit the profession is simply because I didn’t like it enough to stick with it, and didn’t want to indenture myself to a lifetime of departmental politics and dry research. Sometimes I regret my choice, but I do just fine as its turned out, working on the administrative end of things now instead. I still prefer it.

    As for you, it’s clear why YOU never advanced past grad school, (I assume you didn’t). You may like to THINK you have no basic problem with academia and the intelligentsia, but in fact it’s clear from much of what you’ve said that you DO.

  • Alamo

    undaunted warrior

    Don’t fear for me warrior. My self image is not derived from internet pissing matches. Randall, well he has much more invested in this business than I. This site constitutes more than just his avocation I suspect, you know when he’s not busy dazzling folks at “other venues”.

    The internet is chock full of Randalls, each convinced of their unique prescience and intellectual omnipotence. If it helps them manage their needy self-image I say, good on them.

    Shop around, Randall’s are a dime a dozen, and almost always entertaining in a pathetic kind of way.

  • about all this “guns should be banned” scenario. guns dont kill people, people kill people. i dont own any guns and im not pro or anti guns. i live in glasgow which has the highest murder rate in europe. the knife is the weapon of choice, so what can we do? ban every household from owning a knife? of course not! people will use anything at their disposal. in the case of america a gun is most likely to be at hand in the case of glasgow it will be a knife.

    the biggest killer of young people in britain today? road traffic accidents….do we ban cars? no. we cannot ban something simply because people choose to abuse it. and i know il get the responses of “guns dont serve a purpose blah,blah,blah” well neither does alcohol, do we ban that because some people choose to get pissed and start a fight?

  • Randall

    @Mtatazela (287):

    That’s what’s known in some circles as a “joke” Mtataz-atazz. Lighten up.

  • ianz09

    @evad1089 (237): Also a valid point. The problem is that people have perverted the second amendment, and many take it too far. Generally speaking, it is similar to sharks.

    Statistics compiled for the year 2000 by the United States Lifesaving Association, based on
    reports from 68 ocean lifeguard agencies for areas within their jurisdiction, include estimated
    attendance of 264,156,728 persons, provision of medical care to 236,642 persons, 70,771
    lifeguard rescues from drowning, 12 drownings in areas under the immediate protection of
    lifeguards, 62 drownings in areas outside the protection of lifeguards, and 58 fatalities due to
    causes other than drowning. For the same year, at these same beach areas, the International Shark
    Attack File, a compilation of all known shark attacks that is administered by the American
    Elasmobranch Society and the Florida Museum of Natural History, recorded a total of 23
    unprovoked shark bites, none of which resulted in death. For all US coastal waters in the year
    2000, the International Shark Attack File reported 54 unprovoked shark bites, with one resulting
    in death.

    Source: http://www.usla.org/PublicInfo/library/Shark_Bite_Position_Statement_USLA_050502.pdf

    Sharks get their horrible reputation from an immensely small minority. Do people freak out every time they see a shark? Yes. But that doesn’t mean they would be attacked. The ones who obtain firearms and use them to go on a school shooting spree are the ones who get news coverage. The millions more who use them responsibly, or don’t use them at all, never get on the news. And even if they did, they wouldn’t change the perception. It is unfair, but what can you do? I am not personally a very avid supporter of gun rights, nor am I an opponent to them. I am pretty neutral on the subject, a position I think serves me well.

    Until my happy little ass ends up like Belgium and both sides run me over anyway.

    In that case, tootles. :)

  • damien_karras

    @everlast (286): I’m willing to bet the average (legal) gun owning citizen does not (to my knowledge) receive anything close to police training. What’s YOUR point?

  • ziegenbartami

    @rosco89

    It’s nice to see some commmon sense regarding this issue from across the pond =)

  • L

    @Sander (258):

    came to this list to make sure Ol’ Painless is mentioned.

  • ATTICUSf

    I would like to start a petition to prevent EVERY citizen from owning any object with the capacity to be used as a deadly weapon. 1.Guns:including anything that can project something with deadly force(slingshots,etc), 2.knives:we must do away with all sharp edges(man made or naturally occuring), 3.Fire:(manufactured or naturally occuring).I am personally against this horrible invention. I burned my finger once. TO HELL WITH FIRE! This is, of course, just a short list of banned items. All of you pro projectile/sharp edge/fire toting nut jobs need not respond!!! Your zombified love of these things frightens me to the point of death!

    C’mon people. We’re not in kindergarten anymore. Life will never be fair. There will always be people killing people. Be it with guns, knives or good ol’ blunt objects, no amount of finger pointing is going to change this sad fact. I will protect my family, out of love, by any and all means necessary. Out of LOVE of FAMILY Rsndall. No one will ever change that.

  • GTT

    @Alamo (282): Now, I wasnt going to get involved but you just attacked a pretty large chunk of LV users by calling us “basement dwellers”. You call yourself a college professor? You know, it´s very interesting to read the posts of those who manage to enrage Randall. More often than not, they end up cussing him out over his use of “colorful language” while failing to respond to his actual argument.

  • everlast

    @damien_karras (293):

    you posted a story about how some person was disarmed and killed, this happens all the time to police too. that was my point, pretty clear eh?

    again though, what was the point of your post??? are you stating that because of this training police aren’t subject to violence at business end of their own firearm? or that cops should only be allowed firearms? Or did you decided to throw in your buddy cop story for no reason?

    I was serious, I didn’t understand what the point of your post was.

  • Dan

    eh, this list is good but missed many true highlights.

    The M2 and the 1911 are absolute musts for any list of guns, both contenders for the longest-serving military weapon in the history of the world (if you count variations in sword design as separate weapons)

    However, Notable Omissions:

    The M1 Thompson “Tommygun” Submachinegun. Icon of the roaring ’20s, and one of the few submachineguns ever to fire the potent .45 ACP cartridge, same as the 1911 pistol.

    The M1 and M1 Garand, US main battle rifle of WWII, adapted in many forms.

    The SG44, the first true assault rifle in the world.

    The Browning Automatic Rifle (BAR), potential contestant to the title of first assault rifle, or one heck of a light machinegun used throughout WWII by the Americans

    H&K’s MP5, ultimate in reliable firepower in a small package and iconic as the main battle weapon of US high-risk police forces such as the LAPD SWAT teams.

    The M-16 family, though initially plagued by reliability issues, the M-16 was one of the most advanced firearms ever conceived when it was introduced and the modern A4 variant largely has the reliability issues licked.

  • Mtatazela

    @Randall (291):
    After being accused of “frothing at the mouth over this”
    you have the audacity to tell me to lighten up?
    My you like to argue.

  • Alamo

    Randall,

    If you regard National Socialism, or fascism in general as a right-wing movement your academic credentials are more than suspect. Fascism and communism are the flip side of the same coin, and any one who associates free market conservatism with those movements is either intellectually dishonest or an idiot. Labeling fascism a right-wing movement is nothing more than Stalinist propaganda furthered by the left in this country- And that only after 1940 when the left (which had cheered National Socialism and Italian fascism) had to choose sides between fascism and Soviet communism.

    State directed and controlled economies with subjects subservient to the government are progressive constructs and none other.

    Your understanding of economic models and government are preciously shallow- or is it simply obfuscation?

    Well, next rainy day Randall. Thanks for the amusement.

  • Ben

    There is definitely a gaping hole with the mosin nagant missing. Over 30,000,000 of these rifles were made by russia alone, with rifles from the original 1891 production run still working! I have one from 1935 that works perfectly, and feels like a brand new firearm.

  • undaunted warrior

    @Alamo what did I tell you, he is like a honey badger – fearless and undaunted

  • Randall

    Alamo:

    Invariably, when it happens that someone has no answer for a point or a series of points, and yet they cannot concede their error, they next go for irrelevant attacks on their opponent’s character. You’re fitting the pattern perfectly. Neither of us are lovers or fans of Marxism. Neither of us believe that the right to bear arms should be negated. What we are arguing about is A) absurd statements you made essentially denying the overarching gun culture that exists in America—which, oddly enough, any number of other people can readily detect… and B) suspect statements you’ve made which appear to disparage intellectualism and certainly disparage the nature of higher education. (i.e., academia has a higher percentage of Marxists than any other segment of society).

    Despite repeated points made on my part in regards to these two topics, however, your chosen method of response has been primarily to attack my character. Telling.

    “I am glad that the fact that it rained on one of my vacation days bored me enough to engage you in your life’s passion. You’re welcome.”

    The attempt at a nonchalant disparagement of my character is cute, but transparent. Your mischaracterization of me is, once again, a nice piece of bullshit. Save it. No one’s buying it. Least of all me.

    “To pass one’s self off as a lion of intellectualism while continuously employing cheap invective and sophomoric name-calling no doubt lends you weight with your fans here”

    Nope. It simply amuses me. This is not an academic journal. This is an open entertainment site. Again, nice try—that one’s been pulled on me before. Tired, old, and easily answered.

    “but I’m sure it engendered no reputation for gravitas in the academic world. Is this a new development?”

    Again, cute, but a swing and miss, loser. Needless to say, some of us are capable of more than one voice in our public AND professional dealings. There is no inherent suggestion made that THIS voice is the only one I ever employed or ever do employ.

    Not even a nice try. Just pathetic of you.

    “My reference to your influence was of course facetious and I’m sure obvious to everyone- except for you; poor misguided soul.”

    Stick it up your ass, you smug bastard. This attempt at mockery towards me in fact only backfires on you. You don’t yet come off as shrill—you’re not there yet—but you certainly come off as desperate and irrelevant.

    “I’m SURE you are much more of a force in the other venues you speak of- pity you waste so much time here.”

    Yawn.

    “I’d bet your not nearly as much of a big mouth without this warm cloak of anonymity.”

    Try again. And oh, there it is! The next step in the pattern—implying that in real life I’d be a quiet coward who wouldn’t back up his convictions with my mouth or anything else! Yup, you’ve hit the trifecta, Alamo. Wrong on all counts—my voice here is unique, but not my overall attitude or manner of behavior.

    What’s next, more BS psychoanalysis or character attacks? Care to actually address the debated points instead of trying to describe a person you don’t even know?

  • Alamo

    GTT-

    Sorry, not my intent. I’m sure many of the posters here are thoughtful and decent. I was referring to Randall’s cheering section who seem to regard insult and invective as a reasonable tool of argument. He’s a blowhard, nothing more, but he dos have a following. Blowhards often do.

    I see no reason to curse Randall. I find him rather entertaining, you know, like a trained seal.

    And no, I’m no college professor, my father in law is. I actually help produce something people need (as I often tell him).

  • everlast

    pot meet kettle, kettle pot

  • barney frank

    OKAY, SHUT UP FOLKS, and I’ll clear this all up for you.

    A) The right to bear arms is, like it or not, an American tradition even more than it is an actual right; but in fact it IS a right which the founding fathers felt was a vital one, seeing as they stuck it in the Bill of Rights right off the bat—which means that we as a culture placed it higher on our priority list, at the time, than, oh… say, granting the right to vote to women or abolishing slavery. This business about it referencing ONLY a militia is kind of a chimera. YES, the amendment SAYS that, but it’s never been wholly clear what it was actually supposed to mean. Gun nuts say it means that the founding fathers simply meant us to have guns, period. No debate. Gun opponents say, uh uh, it means that the ONLY legitimate reason for owning a gun is to act in defense of your country, and that you must, as a prerequisite of this, belong to a militia. But both sides are wrong, and two centuries of legal argument have borne that out. The fact is that when you weigh the second amendment by the same standards as the other amendments–i.e., you consider its wording in the same light as the wording of the others–it becomes clear (it’s the only thing about this question that DOES become clear) that the founding fathers meant THIS question, also, to be one which WE in their future were supposed to determine the answer to. In other words, each successive generation is supposed to define what it means to have a “right to bear arms.” The militia clause is a justification, a set-up to this, but it is not the end-all and be-all of it—if that were the case, we would never have had private gun ownership in the first place. Now, clearly, the founding fathers didn’t know about powerful automatic handguns and assault rifles and the like. We’re talking about an age when you had a gun to hunt with and to defend yourself and your land. Maybe they didn’t foresee the lengths to which technology could take the firearm. But I don’t think that was ever the point for them. That was for the future to take care of. These guys weren’t mystic visionaries, they were just wise-ass sages who coughed up the finest blueprint for a government mankind has yet produced. Good for them, but they weren’t supernatural or perfect. And they knew that. So their focus on this particular question was the same as with others—there is, they believed, a clear and obvious right to freedom of speech and the press—but we aren’t going to lay out all the little nuances and minutiae of that—YOU need to decide that in the future. Yes, we find the establishment of state religions repugnant, and we aren’t going to allow that, but you folks in the future need to determine what distance between the state and spirituality or religion is appropriate. Owning a firearm is a basic right, because, in the first place, a stable society has to have a populace that can defend itself against foreign AND domestic tyrants and well, just plain defend itself. But we aren’t going to go into detail about it and tell you in advance all the rules or which rules are appropriate and which aren’t. YOU in the future need to figure that out. And that’s us, here and now.

    B) Now, is this appropriate for ALL societies? Well, if it’s in the Constitution and/or the Bill of Rights, then by our own revolutionary principles, we inherently believe it applies to all mankind. Being a good American in the revolutionary spirit and philosophical senses, I am therefore bothered by the idea of other societies where guns are outlawed. Many of them are no less violent than ours; many of them are oppressive regimes. Many are democracies which are peaceful and decent places to live. Clearly, guns per se don’t grant you anything special. And NOT having guns doesn’t change the mix much either. It’s the POTENTIAL of guns that we’re really thinking about when we look with an approving or disapproving eye at other societies. Bottom line is, though, that while we believe our American model to be the best form of government there is, we can’t *really* go around *acting* that way, because mighty as we are, it ain’t real nice to be the bully on the block, even if you think you’re right and big-hearted. What right do we have to tell Britain that they should allow their citizens to freely possess and carry handguns? Their society seems to get along fine without that. And for all our grand philosophies about it over here, we have to face up to the fact that our love of the gun has made our society even MORE violent and nasty, at times. It’s our tradition, yes, but that tradition can also be very dark and bloody.

    C) Which brings me to my next point of prescience that you should all be listening to. The real problem with America, vis a vis firearms, is not that we have them, but that we basically make f**king LOVE to them. We’re not just a gun culture—we’re sick about it. We have a love for the gun that is almost as strong as our love for the automobile. That’s f**king twisted. And if you don’t think it’s twisted, then you’re part of the problem. The issue isn’t the RIGHT to bear arms, really—the issue is how we conduct ourselves around that right. Which is always the problem with us. We are a big, fat, greedy, uncouth and vulgar society that doesn’t know how to act with any finesse or self-control. And it’s repellent. It’s no wonder that much of the world, while sliding between like and dislike of America itself over the years, (that is America as a concept and as a helping hand or a stalwart ally) has never much liked AMERICANS per se. Oh, individual Americans, yes. An individual is an individual. Can be a sweet person or a total cock. But Americans, as a collective group—we’re a bunch of loudmouth assholes, and let’s face it–we are. That isn’t just some perception—that’s what we’ve allowed ourselves to be, out of self-satisfaction, smugness and downright provincialism.

    No less than with anything else, it’s our sick love affair with violence and the gun in particular that partly defines us. And that’s a problem. It’s a big problem. It isn’t that we OWN guns… it’s that we GLORIFY them. It isn’t that we’re a violent people—we are, but so is the rest of mankind. But we GLORIFY violence. And we also vulgarize these things… and so it’s no wonder that a vast swath of our under classes act violently, and carry guns and USE them with such abandon. It’s no wonder that kids bring guns to school, or shoot each other in inner cities as though it meant no more than crossing the street. It’s no wonder that f**ked up middle class brats snap and shoot up their schools and schoolmates with automatic weapons. We live in a f**king cartoon in this country—a sick and twisted cartoon—and violence and guns here are viewed in the same light as we view Sylvester the Cat taking it on the head with a sledgehammer.

    Our problem isn’t, then, constitutional. It’s SOCIETAL. Now, me personally—I would have no problem with banning handguns. I don’t see the need for them. Or at least banning automatic weapons. Why do we need MORE and more efficient ways to kill? But I accepted long ago that this is never likely to happen, and if tomorrow I was made King of America, banning handguns wouldn’t be top on my priority list of Things to Fix. Would it do something to reduce the effed-up gun culture in this society? Yeah, of course it would. Is the way to fix this problem amputation though? I’m not so sure.

    The real answer is that America needs to grow the f**k up. We need to start showing some self-restraint and some sense of humility. Do you think this land o plenty and this superpower shit is going to last forever? Ah ha ha, silly Americans. No sense of f**king history. A country a little over 200 years old, and we think we’ll be on top of the world forever. That’s what we’re like. We’re children. And we play with guns just like we play with everything else.

    So here’s something that could make it stop. Be honest about it. Stop pretending that all these weapons are innocent devices for self-defense and “hunting.” Bullshit. We LOVE them. And we love them for their power and destructive capability. So stop and think about “loving” a weapon, a weapon that kills people horribly and brutally. How would Jesus look at that, people? He’d shake his head in sadness and disgust, and you KNOW he would.

    The gun is a necessary evil, and one that we shouldn’t love, but have a revulsion for, even while we go on believing that we ought to by every right posssess them. Start looking at it THAT way, and in time we wouldn’t have to have this debate about the gun. The place of the gun in our society would reduce to what it OUGHT to be, and not what it is—which at present is one of the centerpieces of what we are. And that’s f**king sick.

  • ??????

    There a quite a few things wrong with this list, please revise firearms if you make another list.

  • Clem

    Oh man, good list.. but i didnt know any of the guns except for the glock and the ak-47 hehe. I would include the M4 carbine, or the mp5 because they are fantastic guns (haha learned from call of duty), and maybe the ak74su or something like that, a sniper in this list wouldnt hurt either because snipers are amazing weapons, able to take out any target.

  • mom424

    Excellent list again Flamehorse – Keep ’em coming!

    I don’t object to guns. I do object to everyone owning them and the egregious lack of controls our neighbours to the south insist is their right. What they consider a right, I consider an irresponsibility. It is only common sense that the higher the number of guns available in the general populace the more likely the criminals will get hold of them. (Our criminals too – a flood of illegal handguns comes across our border everyday).

    Randall has already mentioned the gun loving/violence loving/yahoo attitude that is part of the American culture and someone else mentioned that we Canadians have near about as many guns in relation to our population as Americans. This is in fact true and serves to illustrate Randall’s point – we have lots of guns and very few murders. Hmmmm, why? Because we have rules, that’s why. We have a huge culture of huntin’ and fishin’ – most of our guns are hunting rifles – used for either game or vermin. Hand guns are strictly controlled; the process to get a license is a tough one and even then the only place you can shoot one is at a gun club. Guns cannot be stored in working condition and in no case any where near the ammunition. You must have a license to even carry it to the gun club in pieces. A license to carry a sidearm is available but in practice is only issued to police, security guards and the military. I’d like to claim that our lower murder rate is due to our innate superiority to those Damn Yankees but I don’t really believe that to be the case. You see we have higher rates of assault than our American neighbours – how many of those assaults would have been murders had a handgun been available at the time?

  • Stephen

    @Alamo:

    Are you a politician? Because you never seem to answer Randall’s points and instead only attack his character. I will agree with Randall that it’s pathetic and transparent, and I’ve yet to see you make a point that has to do with the issue at hand.

    So stop acting so smug in your self appeasing “intelligence.” I don’t but it, and I don’t think anyone else does either.

  • ziegenbartami

    Barney Frank: “It’s no wonder that f**ked up middle class brats snap and shoot up their schools and schoolmates with automatic weapons.”

    Um, could you please point out to me ONE instance when a student has carried out a school-shooting with an ‘automatic’ weapon?

  • Alamo

    @Alamo what did I tell you, he is like a honey badger – fearless and undaunted

    A dubious accolade for an internet poster. What’s to fear? Thought provoking and serious would be more admirable.

    Again, that Randall has fashioned himself big bad Listverse bully is illuminating.

    Randall has simply stocked himself in a pond where he (with some success apparently) is the big fish. I say, go Randall. Everyone should feel they are important somewhere, sometime. He’s found his spot, and he’s not moving.

    If anyone is not wondering why Big R has so much time to play here and defends his position “like a honey badger” on Listverse (for God’s sake)then you just haven’t figured Randall out.

  • Randall

    @Alamo (301):

    “If you regard National Socialism, or fascism in general as a right-wing movement your academic credentials are more than suspect. Fascism and communism are the flip side of the same coin,”

    An argument conveniently trundled out by the Right in order to distance itself from these despised philosophies. My academic credentials remain solid, Alamo. Your *bias,* on the other hand, becomes clearer and clearer the more you open your mouth.

    “and any one who associates free market conservatism with those movements”

    And now you’re RE-characterizing the point. When it doesn’t work for you, you change the parameters so it DOES work. No one ever said or claimed that fascism and Nazism were “free market.” Of course, it wouldn’t be surprising to note that you think like an economist, since that was apparently your line of study. But the “free market” is not ALL that defines “the Right,” Alamo. YOUR academic credentials are suspect if you think it DOES.

    “Labeling fascism a right-wing movement is nothing more than Stalinist propaganda”

    Oh my goodness, that’s rich. This is conservative whacko territory you’ve crossed over into now.

    So the Right has never ever ever ever produced a tyranny or a totalitarian state, huh? Goodness, the wonderfully innocent and morally pure Right Wing! We’ve all been so filthily wrong to condemn it!

    Honest to god, the level of bullshit you’re capable of producing, were it rocket fuel, could send the whole state of Pennsylvania to Neptune.

    Again—economic policies and philosophies ALONE do not define Right OR Left. Simply because the fascists and Nazis were not good free-marketeers does not excuse them from any right-wing association and prove them to have in fact been leftists. The far right in fact always supported those movements in their respective countries–be it Germany, Italy, Spain, what have you—and in fact in many instances the ruling elite of these governments came directly OUT OF the Right. Not always–but often.

    “Your understanding of economic models and government are preciously shallow- or is it simply obfuscation?”

    Neither. I’m in fact correct, and you are wrong. If any obfuscating is being done here, it’s on you. I know my history, and I don’t put political spins on it to make it come out the way I want it. You, however, clearly do.

    Moreover, you failed to address the OTHER right-wing tyrant states mentioned—Argentina, for instance… Chile… South Africa, etc. etc. etc.

    Convenient.

  • damien_karras

    @everlast (298): Ok, my point being that a lot of my pro-gun friends and/or associates talk a good game when stating that they would have no problem pulling the trigger on an intruder. Mind you, they have neither owned/fired a weapon. When, I mentioned this to my cop buddy, that’s when he told me the stories of victims unable to shoot, regardless of training. That just got me thinking, that’s all. The cops that get killed by their own weapons, the ones you mentioned, were they unable to shoot the perp out of fear or for some other reason?

  • ames801

    @Stephen (312): You’re defending the “blowhard”; that makes you a “basement dweller”.
    Have I got that right, Alamo?

  • Maggot

    As a testament to my own “sick love affair with guns and violence”, I have one small criticism of your list FlameHorse – if you are going to mention Dirty Harry in your write-up of the S&W Model 29, you could’ve at least used a picture of the more manly-looking 6.5 incher that Callahan used. That snubby looks so wimpy.

    Also, nice historical mention of the Henry Repeater, but I you might also have included a blurb about how it evolved into the more famously known Winchester, the Model 1873 version of which is nicknamed “The Gun That Won the West”. (the U.S. Old West, that is)

    Nice job overall, FlameHorse!

  • knox

    i would never live in a country where i couldnt own a gun.
    how else would i survive the zombie apocalypse without my 12 gauge shotgun?

  • Randall

    @Alamo (314):

    “Thought provoking and serious would be more admirable.”

    Too bad you yourself have proven so utterly inadequate in that regard. You’ve basically said NOTHING since you showed up here.

    “Again, that Randall has fashioned himself big bad Listverse bully is illuminating.”

    *I* did not fashion myself as ANYTHING here. However, it’s illuminating, yes, that you keep coming back to that. Hoping to dash all the beliefs of my “acolytes,” Alamo? To prove me a hollow mouth, with nothing to back up my words? Humiliate me in front of my “followers?”

    Get over yourself, asshole. Again, the only thing you can manage to spew out are transparent and hollow personal attacks. The only thing this does to hurt me is bore me to tears.

    “Everyone should feel they are important somewhere, sometime. He’s found his spot, and he’s not moving.”

    Oh yeah, yup… I feel “important” because of a website. Uh huh.

    K, jerk… think what you like. The more of THIS you produce, the less ANYONE listens to you or heeds YOUR intellectual points (which so far have been few and far between).

    “If anyone is not wondering why Big R has so much time to play here and defends his position “like a honey badger” on Listverse (for God’s sake)then you just haven’t figured Randall out.”

    OH DO TELL US, ALAMO! “Out” me! Go ahead! I’m…what? A sad, pathetic loser typing fervently on a computer in his parent’s basement? Or do you have something more colorful in mind?

    Naturally one might ask why YOU’RE here responding to it all.

    But you see, YOUR character is revealed by that smug little admission you made up above, about what you say to your father-in-law (who you say is a professor)… that you at least “produce something that people can use.” (or words to that effect). Nice. No, you’re not anti-intellectual or anti-academia. I wonder what private feelings, also, this father-in-law harbors for a son-in-law who is openly contemptuous of his profession, which in fact most of us view as a noble one, at least to some degree. Clearly you find it amusing, this disparagement. Perhaps on the surface he too pretends it is. Perhaps it doesn’t bother him at all—if he’s secure in himself, it probably doesn’t. But nevertheless, it says something about YOU, Alamo. And it’s not a nice thing, that it says.

  • damien_karras

    @everlast (299): Ahhh, nevermind. I just thought it was horrific that people would ultimately wind up killed by their own weapon because they couldn’t pull the trigger during the moment of truth.

  • Randall

    @undaunted warrior (304):

    You know, you’re not helping. Can you just make a G&T please?

  • ianz09

    @Randall (320): But nevertheless, it says something about YOU, Alamo. And it’s not a nice thing, that it says.

    Alamo- “Then why don’t you tell me what it says, Randall?”

    That is my prediction for at least part of his next response. Somebody, somewhere, has to send me the monetary equivalent of $5 U.S. if he says that or something decidedly similar. :))

  • everlast

    @damien_karras (316):

    generally there is a grapple/struggle where the weapon is obtained either from the officer (either from him directly or off his person, such as out of the holster). If the the policeman froze because of fear or what is hard to say. Training, be it by a person or a police officer, can only do so much. It because fight or flight, and sometimes a moral choice, that people often freeze, unable to pull the trigger. This can happen to anyone, regardless of occupation or training. Do I think people who own firearms should get training? Sure, but i don’t think it should be a mandatory requirement though.

  • Anon

    Stalin, Hitler, Mao, and Pol-Pot agree: Gun control works! The federalist paper #46 makes clear all Americans possess the right to be armed as right recognized by the second amendment.

  • everlast

    now to the list…

    Its hard to limit the top 10 firearms (handguns, rifles, MGs, SMGs) especially if it is literally ‘of all time’

    my 2 cents,

    Hanguns: 1911, Glock 17, Smith & Wesson Model 1, Colt Single Action Army

    Rifles: Kentucky long Rifle, Mauser, M1 garand, Stg44, F.A.L., AK47, M16

    Machineguns: Maxim Machinegun, M2 browning, MG42

    Su-Machineguns: Thompson, Mp5

    Other: flintlock, Matchlock, Brownbess musket

  • John S

    Every human being has the right to self-defense. Criminals don’t buy their guns through legal means anyways. Therefore, when guns are outlawed, only the outlaws have the guns. I say let the law abiding citizens be an armed deterrent to crime and tyranny.

  • Jay

    Canada has close to or more firearms per person than the USA but a much lower murder rate. Don’t blame the right to bear arms on the crime rate. Guns don’t commit crimes people commit crimes.

  • GTT

    @Alamo (306): Well, it sure sounded like your intent. Apparently, you were not able to continue with an intellectual discussion and so resorted to blasting your “opponent” and anyone who may actually support him.

    You original argument was about the gun-loving attitude in the USA. Call me a basement dweller all you like, I think it stands. Try to look at all these comments somewhat objectively… You´ll see the fanaticism just shining through.

    @ames801 (317): Yup, I´m a basement dweller too. :)

  • end-of-debate

    As most of us, I wondered how is it possible that a lot of American citizens are proud to have the right to bear guns (statistically from those comments).

    @82 brought the solution : Because America has too much “low-life degenerates who couldn’t behave in a free society”

    Whether the right to bear arms is the cause of so many degenerates, or whether the high ratio of degenerates is the cause of such a violent armed country, I ignore. Anyway Americans can only have them in their country. Hence, Love and fearless respect of each other is something that only people living outside this country know (well, not really, but for completely different reasons)

  • SS

    all you people debating about people owning guns and how that kills (i havent read all of the debate so bear with me on this)

    ill just tell you my point of view

    guns arent the cause that people are killed
    and banning them wont do any good since you can still get em illegally on the streets with pretty cheap prices plus there are ways to make your own, and its quite simple….

    the problem is the people
    its a person who chooses to point the gun at another and pull the trigger, not the other way round

    hell i know people who have 20 yr old AK 47’s, makarovs, soviet TT’s and even your standard Beretta in their closets but they dont use em. and not one of those guns has ever hurt anyone (theyve been there a LONG time mind you)

    so why this uproar?
    they aint doing anything to you, so leave people alone
    people have been killed just by a word from someone so do we ban talking? no we dont…

  • GTT

    And now back to this list…

    I´m surprised by all this “if guns are outlawed, only outlaws have guns…”

    The thing is, there are many different gun manufacturers, each producing and selling a whole bunch of guns to be sold “legally” and “only to those millions of responsible citizens who want to own lots of guns to protect themselves with.” These guns then end up in the hands of criminals so the gun manufacturers just produce more (again, for the “responsible” citizen) and the vicious cycle goes on and on.

    There there were stricter gun laws, and fewer people were allowed to legally obtain them, wouldnt that imply that there are less guns being produced (smaller “legal” market) and thus less guns in circulation?

  • murph_head

    Yeah banning and regulating things always helps, because lord knows I can’t obtain illegal and highly regulated things like drugs. PLEASE TAKE MY RIGHTS AWAY. WE ARE NOT QUALIFIED TO THINK FOR OURSELVES. The police and the Government do all of my thinking for me and I would never have any reason not to trust them. You may not have to worry about getting shot, but more people get beat to death and stabbed in your NANNY STATES for money because even the US’s bad economy is better than yours.

  • Whitehorse

    The right to keep & bear arms is not a right “granted” by the US Bill of Rights; it’s acknowledged by it as a pre-existing natural/God-Given right. The answer is yes – law-abiding citizens of all countries have the right to keep & bear arms.

  • Yes, Everyone has the right to bear arms. Good will always triumph over evil in the end.

  • Nick

    I’m surprised that neither the Maxim gun or the MP-44 made it onto the list. The Maxim gun allowed the Europeans to dominate almost all of Africa during the age of Imperialism, at the end of the 1800’s. Many people also state how the AK-47 was revolutionary and changed the course of firearms, and I agree. However, the AK-47 was based off the MP-44, so it seems fitting that the MP-44 would be pretty influential.

  • SS

    ****There there were stricter gun laws, and fewer people were allowed to legally obtain them, wouldnt that imply that there are less guns being produced (smaller “legal” market) and thus less guns in circulation?****

    not really, you have to think a bit broader than that.

    there are already MILLIONS of guns in circulation in storage areas they already have been produced so lowering production wont stop the numbers, and guns are re usable, so they can be re sold and so itll go on forever…

    shit here in albania you can find rifles that are ANCIENT and they have been either passed down or bought even though no one produces them anymore

    yeah im albanian btw O_O

  • GratefulRobb

    Actually, the U.S. Constitution does NOT guarantee the right to bear arms (i.e., own guns). The exercising of this right is due to our right to lobby rather the then constitution. The Constitution provides for the right to an organized militia. In the minds of the framers this amounted to state and local militias so that all of the power was not in the hands to the Federal government. The framers would be wildly disappointed if they know who this right was corrupted.

  • WiseMenSay

    isn’t there any innocence left in the USA? you all seem so fatalistic and pessimistic.

  • kennypo65

    As an american, I must protest against my fellow citizens who say that the U.S.”saved” the world in WWII. Read a little more history before you open your pie holes. Both of my grandfathers served along side British, Austrailian, and Canadian troops. They have both said that these were brave and valiant men and that serving with them was an honor. It is more accurate to say that WE ALL teamed up to save the world from fascism.
    I happen to own several guns myself and am well trained in their use. As a responsible gun owner I am appalled when some idiot acts irresponsibly with a gun. Taking away MY guns will not stop these retards and criminals from doing what they do. That would just keep me from being able to defend myself.

  • ianz09

    My two cents, if I may.

    I believe the debate to be moot, for 5 reasons.

    1. If they can’t shoot, they’ll figure out another way.

    If they cannot shoot you, but are determined to kill you, they will stab, bludgeon, smother, smash, electrocute, poison, etc. Guns are not the issue, killing is the issue. Guns just make the issue a bit easier.

    2. Criminals will obtain their items however they please.

    Legality is but a mosquito to a dedicated criminal, if it was legal, their activities wouldn’t be considered criminal.

    3. The law is set, and it is extremely unlikely that this will change.

    So regardless of if you think it is right or not, it is a right. Like abortion. It doesn’t matter if you are pro-life or pro-choice, the fact remains, that here in the U.S., it is legal. Whether you like it or not, Roe v. Wade is very unlikely to be over turned anytime soon.

    4. You cannot argue for responsible people and against criminals.

    Well, maybe you won’t go on a killing spree, but Tom might. Tom has been at the same dead end job for 12 years, with no promotion, and his wife left him for another man because he was sterile. Before he gunned up the office, Tom had as much right to a legal firearm as you do. Hell, deny it all you want, but until your circumstances change, you have no idea who will be under high-pressure situations. Maybe, in 2 years, you will be Tom. So, you don’t have a right to those guns in your closet you never use, you freaky murderer (of the future).

    5. Shit happens.

    Just because you didn’t mean to drop your loaded handgun on the floor and have it discharge into your friend doesn’t change the fact that you dropped your loaded handgun on the floor and it discharged into your friend. Just because you didn’t mean to have your kid find it and accidently take himself out doesn’t mean he didn’t find it and accidently take himself out. Just because you didn’t mean to shoot a hiker who got lost during hunting season doesn’t mean you didn’t shoot the hiker. And if you say you are responsible enough to prevent these mistakes, think again. We are all human, and humans make mistakes. To rule out any of the above scenarios as possibility is the most irresponsible problem of all.

    So basically, for these reasons, arguing is moot as no one’s opinions will affect anything. Including mine, unfortunately. Before I get all the “well people are going to argue despite what you said” crap, I know. I like posting my 2 cents, and don’t undermine me by saying my opinion doesn’t have any effect. I don’t care. I hope this was objective enough and did not lean to much to any one side. I tried to play for both teams.

  • Erickarthik

    Sad to see that Enfeild was the weapon used in the massacre of Indian civilians by Brits in Jallianwala Bagh. Official British Raj sources placed the fatalities at 379, and with 1100 wounded. Civil Surgeon Dr. Smith indicated that there were 1,526 casualties.

    well we know about ak-47 and its series and the lives it took…..

    wats the point of all these weapons ??? who pays the ultimate price ???

  • GunNoobsShouldNotMakeLists

    The AK47 is the greatest firearm in history. There are more AK47’s in circulation than every M16, CETME, FAL, AUG, combined. It is some simple that a child could operate and so effective is has seen service in most wars since it was first created.

  • GiantFlyingRobo

    @ianz09 (341): I agree. Which kinda makes me feel like a suck-up, because I ALWAYS agree with you.

  • everlast

    @Nick (336):

    the ak47 is NOT based off the mp-44

    God, this myth won’t die.

  • esamuherr

    Very informative list. Well done, after all, regardless of anyones specific feelings about guns, isn’t listverse about sharing information. Not a gun owner but I still thoroughly enjoyed the read.

  • ianz09

    @GiantFlyingRobo (344): Well, as long as you aren’t trying to suck up ;) I think I made a good point, not to toot my own horn…

    Well, ok, once won’t hurt.

    Toot…

  • General Tits Von Chodehoffen

    @Randall (322): Always interesting to read your posts.

    Just a dumb “what if” question to see what people think, and maybe this is messed up to ask but here it is. Would the Holocaust have been less severe if all European citizens had the right to own guns?

  • everlast

    @GratefulRobb (338):

    :face palm: you fail so hard is its funny. go lean some history. Try reading post 214 for a brief bit on the subject…

  • US Marine (In Repose)

    Our 2nd Amendment is listed in what has come to be called the US Bill of Rights. All of the Rights therein are individual Rights that apply to all. End of discussion. There wasn’t even any organized disagreement on this point until the Kennedy Assassination in 1963. Our rather liberal Supreme Court has recently ruled that the 2nd Amendment enumerates an individual right.

    Look. Like millions of Americans I really don’t care what the rest of the world thinks or does on any issue. Even less on this one. Several have speculated that the Right to bear arms is among other things an insurance policy against despotic government. Need I remind that we were still in the process of disavowing a king and potentate that we Americans found to be despotic, when our Founders listed as our second most important enumerated Right that of bearing arms?

    As the nation that saved Europe twice from itself in just the last 100 yrs, and, in the process saved the Aussies from undergoing an Anglophone Rape of Nanking at the hands of the Japs (that’ll get a rise from some wimp), you’ll find most Americans impatient with lectures from well-meaning internationalists. We are much obliged when your lads stand beside ours in defense of Western Civilization — even when the numbers are barely adequate. I doubt that any of your brave troopers in Helmand would side much with the US bashers here or elsewhere. I know of no American worth a good spit who feels it necessary to apologize to anyone anywhere for our peculiarly American traditions and GOD GIVEN RIGHTS. That goes especially for our pantywaist of a President Guess God didn’t deign to bless the auld sod as he’s blessed ours! Maybe Allah will work out better for ya…

    I own an M-4 carbine, an M-14 sniper rifle, a riot gun and 10 or 12 pistols of all calibers. Why? Because I can. I have a carry permit and I live up to its inherent obligation by never leaving home without a pistol on my person. Why? Because I can. If you are ever in my country and in danger, and I am nearby, I may just save your sorry ass whether you want me to or not. I am one of the good guys. I am exceptionally well-trained and responsible just like our stats say on non-criminal gun ownership.

    England and its Commonwealth of nations used to be the courageous defender of Western Civilization – a term that will no doubt get many catcalls from the wogs out there. Where on earth do you think our piss and vinegar come from? Did all the Celts emigrate to America? Did all the men? Buck up, Britain! And Australia too! We need you to man the thin line with us.

    But we’ll do it alone if we have to. Every armed man, woman and child among us.

  • GiantFlyingRobo

    @ianz09 (347): Ha, I love it when you act all serious, and then suddenly start acting funny. I mean that obviously wasn’t your best, but it reminds of some of your other posts. Okay, I have to admit it, this post is 50% suck-up. But whatever.

  • redcaboose

    A good list. I do not have the time now to read all of the comments, but I will tonight.

    Just wanted to say that I am very familiar with the Ma Deuce and the M-16. That is from quite a few years ago. I do not own a gun now, nor do I have the inclination to own one. I live in the US, and believe that the numerous guns here are a blight on the butt of humanity. I do not think that this is what the framers of the Constitution wanted, and if it was, then it is time to re-think it. My opinion only.

  • everlast

    @US Marine (In Repose) (350):

    sadly its something many of them will never understand…

  • ATTICUSf

    @350 US MARINE:
    Makes me(civillian) proud to be an American after reading that. SEMPER FIDELIS. Thank you.

  • GTT

    @ianz09 (341): Exactly, shit happens. These people should try talking to tha family of a little boy who died at my school because he and a friend found the gun his father had “to protect his wife and family”….

    you freaky murderer (of the future)

    That made me giggle….

  • UncleSeth

    In the United States, everyone has the right to bear arms. As a non-American my question is: is this a fundamental human right which should be extended to all people in the world? Should all Iraqi’s have the right to bear arms? If all Chinese people had the right, would they be living under an oppressive regime today or would they have risen up and put it down?

    In response to the questions: yes(absolutely), yes(of course), I don’t know but the odds of them not being so would be in their favor.

  • AMK

    Please do a part 2 to this list!!! Where’s the shotguns, sniper rifles and historic automatics? The tommy gun, the gatling gun, the uzi’s, the winchesters? There’s more than these 10 that shaped the face of the world today!

  • end-of-debate

    One man said something right. Even righter after reading us marine (@350).

    Have you ever lived in a country where no fireams are allowed ? I don’t think so (of course, please exclude the countries you were in only to fight and kill, I don’t think it counts …)

    A previous comment noticed it, it seems that Americans don’t know what is peace and what is feeling comfortable somewhere, surrounded by people who don’t think guns/kill/rape/steal …

    They’re very pessimistic. When the dollar will equal the rouble and the Chinese rule the world (soon), I hope all those poor pessimistic and (can be) violent armed citizens will stay locked inside their own country. And proudly defend themselves against themselves there. The World is to be a place for exchange and communications, not war. Countries that did war a few times understood it. It will never happen again. But for a very young and arrogant country like the USA (which didn’t even fight invaders on their own land once), I guess we have to give it time to get more experience and then they’ll be human and lively like us. See ya in a few hundreds years, humble to be USA!

  • clafarge

    “Well Regulated” in constitutional context is interpreted as “well trained”. One needs to know how to use it, care for it, and when not to use it. Safety is always a concern for gun-owners. More information on the thinking behind the 2nd Amendment can be found in the federalist papers.

    I recently picked up a Taurus Judge (revolver that fires both .45 colt and .410 shotgun shells). Love it.

  • Nij

    I could forgive the fact u left out the M16,L85A2 or G36C. Leaving out the Barrett m95 50 cal sniper rifle was a huge oversight though.

  • The Other Darren

    guns dont kill people…guns with bullets kill people….

  • HandyMandy

    @GTT- Death of a child is tragic, and we have had similar circumstances recently where I’m from. But the fault lies with the gun owner, be it his father or not. He should’ve been more responsible, with the gun and his child. I know this post makes me sound like a cold heartless bitch, BTw I’m not. I read Mom424’s post about the Canadians and she usually has has some really good points, this time was no different. As bad as I hate to say it, America could rethink some of our laws. I’m not saying take away private gun ownership, I am a gun owner myself. But our politicians could take some advice on gun regulation from other places. We need to find middle ground with this issue.

  • Warren

    How is the M-16 not on this list? It’s so reliable it’s been in use for decades and the military can not design anything better to replace it.

  • ianz09

    @GTT (355): That made me giggle….

    Gracias! :)

  • ianz09

    @GiantFlyingRobo (351): Eh, suck-up-manship was acknowledged, and forgiven. I aim to make good points, and hopefully make people laugh. Perhaps I am succeeding… I almost have a big enough following to topple Randall! Look out Randall, I’m coming for you! Me and my follower! Wait until I can put an ‘s’ on follower! Mwahhahhahahhahhahhahahheheeehhehhteehee

  • saber25

    God all of these are greeeeeeeeeeat! I’s every soldiers dream to be put in front of their whole firearm weaponry shop and wtf! here it is on listverse. I truly known all of these, just play a few medfal of honor pacific assualt, then some call of duty 2, 3 and 4. and wacth texas rangers and alas! you’ve known all of these! haven’t seen listverse in a while, it’s our periodical exam this week. so don’t use computer like my mom said

  • ianz09

    @saber25 (366): You just hurt my brain, dude.

  • Hammond Egger

    @363 Warren
    Although a historically significant weapon, the M16 hasn’t always been reliable (ask any Vietnam vet that carried one) and the reason a replacement hasn’t been issued isn’t because nothing better has been designed, it’s the cost of replacing them. The weapon is still deemed effective enough which, at this time, outweighs the money it would take to replace all of them.

  • saber25

    @ianz09(341) ????
    What the f***? can’t you tell the difference between a bludging moose and a frickin hitchhiker?

  • saber25

    Yeah thanks ianz09, and don’t forget to read my comment(369) I am a computer addict plus i’m brain dead for playing my so precious COD4 and MOHPAAAGAHAFANA etc.

  • GiantFlyingRobo

    @ianz09 (365): Um, Ianz, not to bring you down but if you and Randall got into a fight, I’d side with him. Randall is like the Chuck Norris of the Internet. But don’t worry, you’re the Mr.T! Oh, wait. Bucslim is Mr. T. Well, since Jamie is the Bruce Lee, you can be…uh…Jet Li! Yeah, that’s who!

  • ianz09

    @saber25 (369): If a twig snaps and you whip around and shoot, no. Happens quite frequently, actually. Ask DIck Cheney. And We rarely get moose down this way, at least where I’m from. Also, I’m not very sure what to make of the adjective “bludging” I’ll let it slide. Hitchhikers attempt to pick up rides, hikers walk around the woods. On this website, it is permissible to say fuck. And once again, ouchy! My brain!

  • ianz09

    @saber25 (370): lol ok

  • saber25

    How about using this all at once? and ianzo9, thank you, fotr you have become my greatest competition for the most loudmouth commenter here ya asshole I was first last week huhuhu

  • Tonio

    This list makes me want to play Nazi Zombies…WOOO CALL OF DUTY!

  • ianz09

    @GiantFlyingRobo (371): First of all, fuck Jet Li, I’m Jackie fooking Chan! 2, notice I don’t pick fights with Randall? ;) 4, dammit, there goes my follower… 5 I skipped 3, and 6, you just backtracked to check if I skipped 3, or already noticed, and 7, you are smiling because you know that I know that you knew I skipped 3.

  • ianz09

    @saber25 (374): *pops extra strength Tylenol*

    Ow! MOM!!! I need to go to the hospital!

    *ear starts bleeding from stroke

  • saber25

    I am top in class so my brain won’t ouch that’s true. GiantFlyingRobo (371) I am with you all right I am Mr. Ip Man or Jackie Chan neither of the two but i choose Ip Man

  • saber25

    Then I indian massage you ianz09 (377) if you know hat that means. Now the battle for the loudmouth user competition just fucking begun

  • saber25

    ianz09 will you just frickin shut up! Jfray can you please or it would really be great delete all of ianz09 comments

  • GiantFlyingRobo

    @ianz09 (376): Wow! Despite that being one of the most confusing posts here since I don’t know when, I still understood you! LOL! You were spot on. It was kind of creepy… But ok, you can be Jackie Chan, as long as I get to be Theodore Roosevelt! Mmm, kay?

  • ianz09

    @saber25 (378): I’m not saying you’re dumb, dude, but trying to decipher your English kind of ouched my brain. I was just attempting to make you lol in your pants, but I guess not.

  • ianz09

    @GiantFlyingRobo (381): Wait! I change my vote to Godzilla… I didn’t realize we were including fictional people here!

  • GiantFlyingRobo

    And Saber25, fine, you can be Ip Man. (sppt! Who is that guy again?)

  • ianz09

    @saber25 (379): Um, I am not entering a loudmouth competition. You win by my forfeit. Damn, you’re just too good!

  • saber25

    I own a tank… so it should’ve made it to the list. Joking! :D _.|..

  • ianz09

    @GiantFlyingRobo (384): No fuckin’ clue holmes. Bark if you’re my dawg! Woof woof biyatch!

  • GiantFlyingRobo

    @ianz09 (383): But then that’d mean I’d probably feel an unatural urge to kill you!

  • ianz09

    Shit! Then I’ll be Calvin Coolidge… He was like a superhero or some shit… Like, Spiderman’s secret identity, I think…

  • dan

    the US is too big and has too many holes for an outright ban to work.. that would go over about as well as the war on drugs. or prohibition.

    the real solution is to invest in the next generation. we’re getting dumber as a nation and as a people. if the issue at hand is stupid fuckers with guns, maybe we should invest our time preventing the stupid fuckers as opposed to attempting and failing to get rid of guns.

    that would also solve a bunch of other problems like: stupid fuckers with alcohol, stupid fuckers with drugs, stupid fuckers with cars, stupid fuckers with fireworks, stupid fuckers without condoms.

    i think the real difference in crime rates between the UK and the US is that english people today are generally more intelligent and responsible. i love america.. but we really do have a lot of stupid fuckers.

  • GiantFlyingRobo

    @ianz09 (389): Actually, he was a superhero called Acidman from Venus, and his sidekick was Electroradio-boy(who was secretly Tesla). But Chuck Norris sneezed on him, and he (obviously)died.

  • Moonbeam

    I believe that all people should have the right to bare arms…especially if it’s really hot out… and there’s no air conditioning…and no fans.

    Unless they have very ugly arms…then they should wear long sleeves.

  • saber25

    ianz09(382) no i didnt laugh i just wanted to blow your frickin head and you entered a loudmouth which i am not competiting but you and FlyingRobo. (384) GiantFlyingRobo Ip Man is the one who trained Bruce Lee to the Wing Chun style of kung fu. He has a movie or somewhat

  • GiantFlyingRobo

    @Moonbeam (392): Like Madonna???

  • jewraper

    What about the Deagle brand Deagle. 50bmg round. accuracy of a sniper realiabitlity of an ak74u

  • Moonbeam

    @GiantFlyingRobo (394): Yes especially Madonna.

  • mongo

    You are right on the spot moonbeam! LOL

  • GiantFlyingRobo

    @jewraper (395): It’s called a DESERT Eagle.

  • M Mac

    Gatling gun and the varients developed from it, vulcan cannon etc should be on this list.

  • kgb99

    400

  • GiantFlyingRobo

    400

  • jazjsmom

    Well, being an American, my view is that yes we should have the right to bear arms. I am not a gun owner, and personally I won’t have one in my home, but I do not see the wrongness of owning one. Where I am from, people regularly hunt deer and turkey for food. It really helps when the economy is in the dumps like it is. Plus, I agree that taking guns away from civilians will not fix all our problems. Instead the lawless individuals would have the weaponry and I believe crime would rise even more. Do I think every idiot should own a gun? No. I do feel that it should be a mandatory thing for anyone owning a gun to undergo training and supervision, but I don’t see that happening.

  • GiantFlyingRobo

    @kgb99 (400): Gah! Screw you, man!

  • kgb99

    @GiantFlyingRobo (401): Haha. Sorry, bud.

  • Bill

    The main reason we Americans believe so strongly in the right to bear arms (those of us that believe in it anyway, as there are some who don’t) is we understand that the last vestige of defiance lies in the barrel of a gun. When a government becomes so corrupt that it can not be allowed to persist do any of you really believe that this government will allow it self to be voted out of power? I think its asinine for anyone to think that a government, no matter how well constructed, is above this level of corruption. All you need is the right mix of public willingness to give up liberty (generally through wide spread fear) and a person willing to take advantage of this situation. And yes, people misuse guns, but people also misuse cars, and knives, and crowbars and just about everything else you can imagine. And yes, people accidentally kill themselves with guns, but people accidentally kill themselves with all sorts of things that most reasonable people don’t think should be outlawed. I guess the point of all this is i don’t understand how anyone can be so secure in their liberty that they are willing to give up the one thing they have that can be used to overthrow an oppressive government. Anyone who lives in, or closely follows, the US over the last 10 years has seen all sorts of things that were believed impossible prior to it; secret trials, secret prisons, indefinite detainment without trial, warrant-less searches, a secret police force, not to mention the specter of having the government dictate how we live our lives, what we eat, what we think, how we work, how we spend our money… we need our guns now more then ever!

    (btw love the site!)

  • GiantFlyingRobo

    @kgb99 (404): Fine. Apology accepted.

  • Jstar

    AK-47 should be number 1. I’m a fan of guns and I knew that the AK would be number one, I was surprised to find it eclipsed by the 1911. Really? The AK has been a lot more influential than it, plus most of the other reasons given on the previous comments.

  • GiantFlyingRobo

    Okay, you know what? Why don’t you guys go and try to see how quickly you can get post 550, while I do some other,off-line things. This site is simply too addicting. Good bye

  • astraya

    After a quick scroll through this “discussion”, I don’t think there’s too much material for the “What is the all-time funniest comment on the List Universe” forum.

  • saber25

    ianz09(389) yeah and after that sidekick was sneezed on by chuck norris the main character was butt-kicked by Ip man which led to his death after Ip man gave a Wing Chun flying kick to his penis and absolutely crush bot testes

  • pwscott

    Arms is a general term. It is any weapon you use to protect your person or your freedom. From what I’ve seen personally we don’t have the right to have or use firearms. I have the right to breathe because it is taken freely without consequence. Firearms on the other hand are regulated by state and federal law. My example is a friend who at 17 was involved unknowingly in a gun crime by being a getaway driver. He went to trial at 19 and was considered a felon. Now being much older his exwife accused him of stealing her property which gave the law the neccessary means to find no stolen property, but loaded weapons in a residence he owned but did not live in. Now he faces 4 years federal prison time. That is not a right to bear arms.

  • justjim

    I think the list might have had a newer weapon for us to examine. The metal atorm, fired electronically and without the use of gun powder… Paint the sky black with a million rounds a minute.

  • Stranger

    I have spent the last forty plus years examining the results of the 22,309 restrictive gun laws around the world. Without exception the following things happen after restrictive gun laws go into force.

    First, the crime rates skyrocket. Second, even more restrictive gun laws are introduced in an attempt to reduce the crime rate. Third, in a very short time, civilian gun ownership and possession is eliminated, and the criminals own the streets. At that point the police turn on the citizens, resisting criminals becomes itself a crime, and the authorities become complicit in criminal activity.

    At that point, liberty begins a quick slide into tyranny. While that slide often took a generation or more in centuries past, modern techniques have made it possible to turn a free state into a police state in a few years.

    So “Should the right to keep and bear arms be extended to all people?” Should your right to self defense, to live in a low crime society, to live under a government of your choice extend to you? If your answer is yes, the answer to your question should also be yes.

    Stranger

  • cody

    @215 That is amazing.

  • Iakhovas

    I used to have a .303 Lee Enfield, until the police “confiscated” it. Had the bayonet and everything. Loved that Rifle.

  • uninsane

    great list, but I think hands down the model 1911 springfield beats the Lee- Enfield.

    Also I think the 50 cal sniper rifle should be in there somewhere

    @ bonus question
    I do think it would be a good thing if all civilians in the world had the right to bear arms.It’s a historical fact and has been proven in numerous studies that high gun ownership rates reduce crime.

    It does make logical sense, who would want to be a mugger,thief,robber in a town where odds are 9/10 that anyone you attack has a bigger gun than you

  • KK

    I like guns. i don’t like killing people but guns and power are kinda cool. i don’t own a gun. i don’t need a gun. i’m doing fine without one, just like everyone else in my country. i think people in america may need to start questioning the ammendment. things aren’t right forever, just cause they were useful in history. there is far less gun related violence and general violence in my country. we can have guns if we want, after gettin a firearms license etc. and that’s cool. it’s regulated and safer.
    doesn’t that tell you something?
    i know the ‘tradition’ arguments and mostly i know that people just like guns. that’s it. they are not a necessity and should not be encouraged.
    the end.

  • whathappened?

    Guns are certainly not a topic of interest for me but this list was very well written and thoroughly enjoyable. Keep the lists coming FlameHorse :) As for the bonus question, while I do agree that in some cases owning a gun for self-defence can add a feeling of security, it is unnecessary for every American to have the right to bear arms. Having said that, in other parts of the world owning a gun may be a necessity for defence against animals and humans who behave as such. However, just because something is illegal doesn’t mean people won’t do it, so regardless of whether people are legally entitled to own a gun or not, they can still obtain one if they so desire. The basic gist of what I’m saying is no, people should not have the right to bear arms, and I don’t think preventing them from owning one is a breach of freedom rights, since guns are not an essential part of human survival (although there are exceptions like situations of war) and if they so badly want one they could certainly find a way.

  • Phil

    First, Sean is the sanest person commenting here today.

    Secondly, self-defense is a God-given right. No government can take it away. Guns are simply a means to that end. (self-defense, that is)

    Third, if you live in a country that prohibits you from the means to effectively defend yourself, then you need to either continue to live as a subject/slave, or become politically active in the cause of changing your government to one that acknowledges fundamental human rights.

  • jonnyboy

    would you still believe guns had a place in society if your only son was killed accidentally in a drive by shooting?

  • Moloch1123

    @undaunted warrior (240): I’ll cosign on that!! I may be brave, but I ain’t retarded… hence I don’t take on Randall anymore. I’ll even admit it publicly – “That man makes me feel like a total retard. May he live forever!”

  • ianz09

    @saber25 (393): Dude… What? The only thing I got out of that was something similar to you want to blow me. I mean, I’m not gay, but I’m obligated to accept your olive branch…

    @saber25 (410): Seriously dude, you lost me at ianz09(389). I want to argue back, but, I can’t!

    WHAT ARE YOU DOING?! MAKE SENSE, DAMMIT!!!!

  • ianz09

    @astraya (409): You saying we ain’t funny? Dem is fightin’ words, sir!

  • Wing master

    I am very surprised at the ignorance of many of the posters here.
    You don’t think responsible citizens have the right to defend themselves and their families?
    It is irresponsible to think you can protect your family and yourself by calling police and waiting for them to remove a violent threat.

  • Adrian

    I am a Singaporean and over here the knee jerk reaction to this topic would be” our government don’t allow guns so we never have any problems with crimes involving fire arms unlike OTHER countries naynee naynee nay nay…” but I must say that there is really something to the American constitution. I have often wondered what my country men would do if we have the misfortune to be completly oppressed(not that we are too far off) by the government. How would we ever be able to fight for our freedom? With nerf guns? So yeah perhaps it really is a deep issue than simply ‘got gun will kill’. BTW, huge fan of the Colt .45,
    can’t even bloody get bb gun versions here.

  • Maxx the Slash

    I’m all in favor of people defending themselves, but I’m also in favor of people’s right to, you know, NOT BE MURDERED.

    I think guns should be outlawed because they’re unfair. When I say unfair, I mean if certain people want the right to carry weapons around, they’re going to use them to hurt or kill people, and sooner or later they wont care if it was justified. The unfair part? Not everyone else can own a gun. My 13 year old cousin can’t “defend” herself because she’s too young. But I though we had “the right to bear arms”? We should give everyone of all ages guns. Don’t agree? You’re violating a kid’s right as Americans to bear arms and protect themselves…

    I better stop here, but you see how extremely ****ed-up an issue this is? Wouldn’t it just be easier to eliminate guns all together, so that if you want to kill someone, just use a knife, or a shovel, or a pipe. You know, things EVERYONE can get a hold of so there’s no bitching or moaning from any side of the issue; you can still defend yourself, just not with guns. A bat with nails hammered through it can still kill your precious murder victim, a gun isn’t needed.

  • TJ

    Only issue I got with guns is the fact that war has changed.. I would be more into joining the army if we could just carry swords and axes around.. Speaking of I wanna go sack a village right now!!

  • GiantFlyingRobo

    @ianz09 (422): I made a reply to you,(391), he replyed, and he used his trademark atrocious grammar throughout the post.

  • astraya

    ianz09: Please prove me wrong. Please select at least one of the side-splitting gems of humour from this discussion and paste it or them into the “What is the all-time funniest comment on the List Universe” forum. I set up the forum but I don’t own it. I welcome others’ contributions.

  • GiantFlyingRobo

    @astraya (409): I don’t live for your entertainment, mam, nor for your stupid forum.

  • Jesse

    If you want street crime to drop in the U.S. get the Police to start walking beats again like the old days. There once was a time in the U.S.when every person knew the Police Officer that was assigned to their neighborhood. Presence is needed, why do you think they used to call them flatfoots.

  • Wolfey

    The US Constitution does not grant the right to keep and bear arms. It recognizes that the right is inherent to a free people. The places where the right to carry has been protected crime is less than places like Washington DC and Chicago. England is far from a idyllic peaceful country. Just this week I read how much more violent places like Londistan has become. How about a few cliche’s. “When guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns.” Or maybe “When seconds count the police are only minutes away”. All you “guns are awful” people should put a sign in your front yard that says “The people in this house hate guns so we are unarmed”. No reason to be afraid of that right? I on the other hand want the bad guys to wonder and worry if they will walk in on an armed prepared homeowner.

  • Yun

    The right to self defense is inalienable, and a complete ban on gun ownership infringes upon this right and puts law abiding citizens at risk.

    Outlawing guns will not have any effect on those who already have no respect for the law. All it will do is make those who do more vulnerable, and cause people who never have, and never intend to, hurt anyone for any reason other than self defense to be labeled dangerous criminals for no other reason than an irrational fear that they might do something bad some day.

    No one should have their freedom taken away because of something they haven’t done yet, even if you ignore the fact that the overwhelming majority of them will never do what it is you’re afraid of.

  • daxxenos

    No wonder all you SUBJECTS are getting carved up and shot on a daily basis. You all actually believe that, somehow, the police are there to protect you, not just clean up after when you are butchered. It’s not a coincidence that, in the US, the highest crime rates are in cities that ban private ownership of guns.

    There is nothing sorrier than a “civilized” city dweller who is too stupid to realize he is walking, talking prey, as he smugly bleeds to death in a gutter…

    When some 7th century animal is sawing off your head with a dull knife for a video camera, or throwing you into a plastics grinder for failing to obey Sharia, you can bleed out, screaming, with the proud realization that brutes with guns will avenge you, since you aren’t willing to do it yourself. I’ll bet the 750,000 Tutsi are VERY proud of themselves.

  • Yun

    Addendum: The idea that a legal code “grants” a right to its subjects is ludicrous and needs to be corrected. Rights are given to us by God/nature (pick whichever you prefer) and the state. If there were no state people would still be able to speak their minds, bear arms, worship as they please, associate with whoever they choose, own property, etc. These are not things granted by legal authority, these are things a good state chooses not to take away.

  • Didion

    I love guns. They’re really fun. That being said, I’ve taken multiple police safety courses, I am a good shot, and was taught from a young age the proper use of firearms…i.e. every gun is a loaded gun. I have never shot or fired at anything living. I don’t really support hunting, but I love target shooting. I have two shotguns, and two .22 Long rifles.

    Blackpowder and antique firearms are one of my most well-loved hobbies.

    If one was to introduce guns into a social economy, I’m all for it, however, there must be required safety courses. You can’t go from no experience to owning a firearm without bad things happening.

    All that being said, where’s the Kentucky Long-Rifle?

  • Yun

    Correction: Rights are given to us by God/nature (pick whichever you prefer) and the state either protects them or takes them away.

  • Didion

    Oh. BTW, my post had nothing to do with previous posts, I didn’t even read them all. I loved this list and just wanted to comment.

  • daxxenos

    To Didion:
    The Kentucky Rifle, (actually from Pennsylvania), was just an improvement of the German Jaeger rifle, longer thinner barrel, lighter for extended carry in the woods. A better rifle of the same period was the .50 cal. Hawkin Plains rifle, handier, accurate for game killing to 200 yards, and, with a cap lock, more reliable.

  • k1w1taxi

    Interesting reading for sure.

    The List
    Interesting choices though I wonder at the inclusion of both the .303 AND the Mauser. I would have thought just the one would have sufficed on the list as they are largely contemporaneous examples of weapons that did the same job.

    Also the .50 cal Browning. I know anything that has a half inch calibre bullet sounds awesome, but the Browning didn’t really advance the machine gun any. The mg42 would have sufficed for machine guns unless you were going to include one of the early ones (Gatling, Maxim etc).

    Jamie, Whats with the piddly little .44 Magnum pic? Really does need the Dirty Harry Callaghan version, or even the auto loader he used in Sudden Impact.

    The M16. Glad to see you left it out. Talking with my Drill Instructors during basic training in 1977, not one of those who had been in Nam would exchange their FN SLR (standard NZ Issue) for an M16. Apart from its reliability issues and the extra distance you had to stick your head up to use the sights (which were considered of questionable value anyway)was the sheer lack of stopping power they observed in the field.

    The Comments
    How surprising that this topic should cause over 360 comments in less than 24 hours and both sides about as diametrically opposed as the god/atheist, Christian/Muslim debates.

    As usual Randall’s entry into the debate (apart from inciting some bozo who insists on arguing Randall instead of the topic) hit the nail on the head with regards The USA’s societal problems with gun control and use. Despite Alamo’s feeble attempt to deny it (before digressing to his ad hominem attacks on Randall) Hollywood and the media DO glorify the gun and gun culture. Not to mention the lone citizen triumphing (with his gun) over the corporate/secret government/organised crime masses. All of which bear as much resemblance to reality as the Lord Of The Rings. Classic example of the glorification of the gun in movies. Listen to them shooting those big calibre suckers. Do you know how much is added to the sound effect to make them sound that good?

    Add to this the misconceptions/misinterpretation/misrepresentation over the 2nd amendment, and the sensationalist nature of crime reporting and you have a large part of cause of the US gun culture of today.

    One aspect of this is demonstrated by the number of people who own many more weapons than they can possibly justify from a defence/’tool’ POV. By which I mean how many handguns do you really need to defend yourself from some home invading criminal? 10 or 12 like our reposing marine above (note also that he can’t even give an exact figure). Why own so many? ‘Because I can’ Dumbest justification since elementary school. Scientists can also clone humans does that mean they should/must?

    The argument about defending from tyranny? That is just a joke. In the 21st century who the hell do you expect to invade the USA by force of Arms? It is never going to happen! Terrorists? None of your 80 million gun owners made any difference on 9/11. Internal tyranny? Never going to happen!! The US electorate is too educated (2000 notwithstanding)to allow that level of tyrant to gain enough support to get anywhere near power.

    So on to self protection. Another fallacy.
    Where at home are you going to keep it? Somewhere safe from the kids? So how accessible is it to you in a hurry? In the bedside cabinet? Is it loaded? What if the kids find it? If the magazine is kept separate from the gun are you going to have time to load it? Can you REALLY shoot someone dead?
    On the street where are you going to carry it? Men – in a holster? How do you stop it falling out or similar? is it concealed? Are you going to have time to reach and draw it? Ladies in you handbag? how quickly can you get it out in an emergency? Really? Can you REALLY shoot someone dead? If they are not carrying? Can you shoot multiple assailants? What do you do if your assailant catches you from behind?

    If the chance of being confronted by a violently inclined criminal is so great maybe you ought to wonder just what your tax money is being spent on, or whether all those big earners really need another 5c in the dollar off the top tax rate? Or Halliburton really need so much to clean and feed your troops? Or is the reality that most of you have never had any reason to fire, or even present your weapon in defence of life or property?

    As for Godgunsguts and his (?) assertion that an armed society is a polite society, perhaps you could explain how that works as it sure looks very different from here with all your crims and gangs and nutters ready to blow someone, anyone, away for no cause whatsoever. Or perhaps you can show me some quotes of how polite the Columbine killers were, or any number of drive by shootists, or Mcdonalds measscreists or perhaps Yoko Ono can tell us how polite Chapman was when he shot John Dead?

    Which is another thing about the pro gun lobby so full of these allegedly pithy/witty short sentences to support their view. Sorry guys these only show the rest of us how short and lacking both your argument and your attention spans are. Present an argument – not a soundbite.

    Unfortunately all of the above does not really matter, because the problem of guns in The USA is now basically beyond control. There are so many guns out there that any prohibition on ownership is just a waste of time due to being completely unenforceable. However before all you pro gun people settle down thinking that all is again right with the world consider this. Western society is headed to hell in a handbasket very quickly. The number of criminally inclined youth is growing in almost every country in the Western World. This growth is combined with a combination of a growing lack of respect for anything outside their particular sphere/gang, and a much faster inclination towards a much more lethal level of violence to express themselves.

    So rather than wondering whether to spend that bit of extra cash on a 15th handgun for yourself maybe you should look at some ways to prevent your needing it?
    Cheers
    Lee

  • sarx

    Iraq actually allows each household to own a machine gun, thus the reason we drilled, and drilled, and drilled, and fake prosecuted during training for “killing” a civvie who had an AK47 against the wall. We had to be trained they were allowed and how to handle that.

    As for the anti-gun crowd in the US, most of those folks live in heavily urban areas. Their only exposure to a gun is through violent crime. It is a fact that in every state that has a concealed carry law or open carry law (Arizona), violent crime has a nasty habit of declining. In the most restrictive states (New York, DC, California) violent crime is much much higher. There is a correlation of “peace through superior firepower.”

  • 288GTO

    im sure not everyone in china would support the coup, but if a group of freedom fighters emerged bearing weapons, the chinese military would take very swift and effective actions in silencing them.

  • choadius

    Good list, but the guns chosen are all fairly modern.

    People that believe that laws prevent someone from acquiring technology that is hundreds of years old are comical. A determined person can get a gun in any country.

    People that want the state to possess weapons, yet deny citizens the same rights, are naive.

    I do not carry a weapon, but if some maniac comes into a school or workplace and begins shooting, I hope there is an armed citizen present to dispatch the loon.

  • Didion

    @ Daxxenos:

    I am familiar with the Hawkin Rifle, I have fired several, both .50 and .54 cal, and I agree with you, much, much more practical. I think with the Pennsylvania Gun (or as I call it, the Kentucky Long Rifle) I meant more its significance in the American Revolution. Some argue that without it, we (Americans)would all still be Brits… but maybe I’m being too American Minded.

    Anyway, I almost purchased a hawk.54 at a recent gun show *sigh* I couldn’t justify spending the money. It is a Nostalgic firearm for me, because I used to shoot one with my dad. I grew up with a lovely Tiger striped maple KLR above the fireplace…such a lost thing these days…

    As for the German one, I hadn’t heard of it, that’s interesting, thanks for the info. I’ll look up pics of it.

  • redcaboose

    @k1w1taxi (440): You brought up a lot of interesting points. I agree with most of what you said. On the part about self protection, I remember reading a study about the Rambos that kept guns near, or in, their beds. Many would see someone at the foot of their bed and…you guessed it, they shot their own foot.

  • TFD

    The whole attempt to reduce violence by banning weapons becomes pointless very fast – and not just because people of a criminal mindset care nothing about violating such a ban. If you truly want to prevent the use of weapons in violence and assaults, you have to be pretty darned expansive in your definition of a weapon to have any effect. An extreme example: a school I went to seriously debated banning automatic pencils from class, the argument being that the lead was stronger and more likely to penetrate deeper, causing more serious injury, should a student stab someone with it.
    Yes, yes, I know the first objection to this will be that more violent weapons cause more harm, etc., and I’m not debating that a gun is significantly more lethal that a sharp writing utensil. My point simply is that violence happens, and people tend to use whatever is at hand to help cause it, so you can’t blame the tool for its use.
    Would banning or restricting guns reduce violence levels? I don’t know, although personally I doubt it. Irregardless, guns do not cause violence, even if they are used by violent people.

  • ianz09

    @astraya (429): Well, I apologize that you didn’t find me funny. I realize many people don’t. However, my lacking comedic talent had yet to actually offend somebody. I’m sorry you didn’t find me funny, but your bashing me was very out of line. If you don’t like it, read it and move on. I had never had any plans to submit my comments for all-time funny, or whatever. I say what I say. If it makes you laugh, great, I’m glad I provided the laugh. If it doesn’t, well, I’ll try harder or stay out of your way. I’m not very conflictual, and definitely didn’t say anything in order to offend anyone, other than my dogging of saber25, who jumped on me first. You need not what need not be bashed. I’m a little shocked that you would jump on my case over something so trivial and stupid. It would be different if I was insulting or offending.

  • Linc Allen

    I am an American. A Texan no less. I don’t view the fundamental right for a person to own arms as a bad thing. With proper background checks and gun safety training open gun ownership can work for a society. Unfortunately we do not have that in some states, namely Texas. We have this thing called a gun show. Though there are background checks for all guns but shotguns (why shotguns?) at gun shows you can buy a gun outright. You can buy hundreds of guns outright. Why would one person need hundreds of guns? One reason and one reason only- illegal arms trade. And the gun companies support these gun shows because they like money and could care less whether their money causes death. The illegal arms go to Mexico to fuel their massive cartels and into our poor communities fueling our gang and drug wars. Very few go to militias. Very few stay in personal hands to protect families. Arms dealers also sell openly to African and Middle Eastern countries (and at times insurgents too) fueling violence there. So why don’t we change something? Because its only the poor (mostly blacks) and foreigners (mostly Mexicans, and other “brown” heretics thousands of miles away) dying because of our policies. Why would a rich white conservative care about any of those groups?
    If there were laws like ours in China they might be able to overthrow their regime, but there would be a long, bloody civil war probably costing millions of lives. Once that ended, there would be so many different factions wanting different things (think Iraq), and now they would be armed. Think pogrom type massacres of the many different minorities in the provinces of China, many of which are only held down right now because of the central government. I don’t mean to seem like I’m supporting the oppressive regime, but before anyone says “We must end all oppressive regimes” he or she should look about the much more vast bloodshed that ending a regime such as China’s would cause.

  • Linc Allen

    Also, most gun deaths, in fact overwhelmingly most gun deaths are accidental (by family members) or because of domestic violence (again family members). It is statistically quite obvious that it is much more dangerous to have a gun in your house “to protect you and your family” than to not have a gun in your house.
    And on my above comment: The fact that we have such a giant illegal gun trade fueled by legal gun trade puts to rest the ridiculous idea that “if we make guns illegal, criminals will still find a way to get guns” which is actually fairly common excuse for our idiotic gun laws here.

  • Samzilla

    @Moonbeam (392): I’ve been waiting for that reading these comments! Thanks!

    But I thought only hairy guys had the right to “bear” arms?

  • Wilko

    Flamehorse the answer to your question is a resounding NO.
    my theory is that if guns are available, they end up in the wrong hands. the hands of nutters with violent dispositions. i guess if US society is that screwed that they need guns to feel safe, and its people are overwhelmingly in favour of gun ownership, then let them have their guns. Many other countries are much safer and we dont need or want guns.

  • jdub888

    The maxim gun contributed in the rise of imperialism. How can a gun that helped European civilizations rule the world be disregarded?

  • Myself

    No Walter PPK ?
    No Desert Eagle .50 ?
    No M4/M16 ?
    No Sig ?
    No Artic Warfare Police ?

    Come on…

  • flamehorse

    @Phender_Bender (271): @ianz09 (229): And also Maggot: You’re right Phender, .40 S&W. I mixed em up. ianz09, some of your suggestions would make very good lists! I’ll see about it. In the meantime, you could do one.

    Maggot, I have no control over what pics are used. I think JFrater chooses em. The longer barrel is more famous, you’re right.

    I had no idea this topic is so sensitive! 450 comments! Wow-ee.

    I do love to instigate. :)

  • flamehorse

    You know what I think I’ll do? A list of the ten best proofs of God’s existence, and the ten best debunkments of those proofs.

  • Jason

    I think leaving the Remington 870 off the list as “the shotgun” was unfortunate.

    Drop the Deuce or the MG 42 and put the 870 on there. I know the 42 and the Deuce were important in the history of modern firearms, but they are quite similar mechanically. All of the others on your list are unique in their design in some form. Drop one of these duplicates and throw a solid pump shotgun on there.

  • KiwiMatt

    @ 350 US Marine

    Look. Like millions of Americans you are a braggart and a fool to boot. If it wasn’t so offensive your reference to the rest of the world’s “barely adequate” military contributions would be laughable. Despicably entering at the finale of a colossal global war after all others had made tremendous civilian and military sacrifices is not anything to be proud of. Good job in the Cold War though, don’t forget that Britain (including the Commonwealth) and Europe were there too however. Also, no one really joined you in Iraq because your motivations were dubious and leaders halfwits.

    I agree that some of your traditions are odd but no one anywhere is asking you to apologise. This is largely because we simply don’t care if you eat and shoot yourselves into oblivion.

    What are you manning the thin line against, we are all Capitalists these days! Are you “manning the line” against Terrorism? All Al-Qaeda wants is for you to leave their part of the world alone. Leave them alone and they will leave you alone. The only real “line” that needs manning is against nuclear rogues like North Korea but we haven’t yet seen the US display any piss and vinegar to actually do anything about it.

    You say you were a Marine, and you comments back this up. As we all know soldiers are drawn from the lower levels of society, what I am suggesting here is that you are not paid to think so don’t attempt it lad.

  • Bill

    How did the BAR (Browning Automatic Rifle) not get on here? At the time it was made it was pretty much the best gun in the world wasn’t it? Im no expert but i remember seeing something on the history channel about it…

  • Eyeswideshut

    350: “Our rather liberal supreme court” – correction.

    The Supreme court composition today: John Roberts (Conservative), Scalia (C), Thomas (C), Alito (C), Stevens (Liberal), Kennedy (Swing), Ginsburg (L), Breyer (L), Sotomayor (L).

  • ed

    guns don’t cause civil uprisings and revolutions.

  • Mike

    Nice list, except for the ability of the Smith Model 29 .44 mag. Yes, it will drop a Cape Buffalo or Polar Bear, but only if you shoot them first with a large caliber rifle bullet (say a .454 Rigby). A .44 mag coming out of a pistol barrel doesn’t have the energy to stop dangerous game like that (not even in a rifle length barrel for that matter). In fact, if you went hunting Cape Buffalo, one usually has a partner with as big a gun as yours in case you can’t get off the quick second shot that could save your life. Heck, you’d be outmatched by the Cape if you went hunting with the venerable .30-06,, the classic American hunting round.

  • fcvaduz

    If only we had the right to own guns in Europe, then it would stop people breaking into my house and kidnapping my family. This happens far too often nowadays, sometimes it’s twice a week. And being robbed in the street, I can scarcely walk for five minutes for being robbed, because I don’t have a gun. Seriously, come on….

    Protecting families and yourself from violence is a noble and valid idea, but taking another life to maintain your possessions, priorities need to be reassessed.

  • Shagrat

    What about the Australian Owen automatic rifle. Designed, built and made in Australia on the eve of WW2 and supplied to many of Australia’s servicemen in the islands and in the Middle East.
    Like the AK-47 it could be dropped in a swamp, thrown at a wall, have sand poured down the barrel and have all manner of trucks and armoured vehicles use it as a speed hump and you could still pick it up, insert a new mag and empty the entire clip into whatever bastard wearing the wrong uniform is standing in front of you and trying to give you a one-way ticket to the Promised Land.

    Many soldiers on the Kokoda Track owe their lives to this gun.

    It wasn’t replaced until the Australian army adopted the SLR during the Vietnam War (another great automatic rifle which the Yanks were always trying to obtain by attempting to swap for it – offering their crappy M-16’s in exchange)

  • Greg

    I see it often quoted how many people in the United States are killed by guns, which in effect makes guns BAD. This is rubbish logic. There are a great many people that feel that a porcupines favorite food is a cactus, and it’s THAT kind of logic that is ruining this world.

    Several years ago, Florida passed a law that said if you felt you were in danger, and you were armed, you no longer had to attempt to flee before you defended yourself. The political pundits and the gun-grabbing left were certain this would mean the streets of Florida would run red with blood. Actually, just the opposite happened. Violent crimes spiked DOWNWARD, as did murder rates.

    The simple fact is not knowing who is armed keeps many would-be criminals at bay. Put two houses on the same block…in front of one of the houses, post a sign that says “No guns Zone”, and I guarantee you that house gets broken into first.

    Having a kill someone to defend family and home is a regrettable action, and a situation I for one hope I never find myself in. However, I would use deadly force to defend my wife if need be.

    What so many people who aren’t from America don’t realize about our Bill Of Rights (and what, in fact, so many American politicians don’t realize about it), is that it (the The Bill Of Rights) was not written as the basis for a system of laws, it was written as an agreement with the American People as more of a list of what our Government is not permitted to do. That may seem like a small difference, but really it is very significant.

    Americans have ingrained in their psyche a natural distrust, almost loathing, of Government. In fact, a standard punchline in America is “I’m from the Government and I’m here to help”.

    Another statistic that isn’t quoted nearly as often in the media is the dramatic rise in violent crime in countries where guns are outlawed. There has been murder on this planet since the first humans walked upright, or if you’re religious (such as I am), since Kane murdered Able. A gun does not make people kill. A gun is simply a tool. It’s neutral. It doesn’t take sides. If someone is hellbent on doing you and/or your family harm, they will do so whether they use a gun, a rock, a knife, a car, or a homemade bomb.

    To be cliche’d…blaming guns on murder is like blaming spoons on someone being fat.

  • towerclimber

    To Linc Allen:

    1. It’s a proven statistic that 99.9% of all automobile deaths were accidents.
    2. I’m one of those guys that “owns hundreds of guns” and I frequent gun shows. I don’t sell my firearms and the exact number of firearms I own is none of your damned business. I can state without a tremor of doubt that a. I’m not an international arms dealer b. you’re not reciting facts, and c. I’m not selling them to mexico.
    Most of the automatic weapons that Mexico uses? they’re just that..automatic weapons. most are gotten from South America. It has been against the law to manufacture an automatic weapon (machine gun) in the U.S. since 1986..that’s why they’re so expensive here. all are documented and closely scrutinized.
    All weapons sold at gun shows, by dealers, are done so after a background check.
    personal sales of private chattels are not subject to government scrutiny.

    I have carried some form of firearm since the legal age of 18 and learned to shoot various firearms at the age of 12. I have yet to shoot someone in contravention to the law.

    I think that you have led a pretty sheltered life. I hope that continues so that you never see the need for such things as firearms..but I can guarantee you that should America forsake the 2nd amendment, you will.

  • Jen

    Interesting list. I found it quite informative.

    As to the question, it’s a bit of a loaded one, pardon the pun. I do live in America, and quite frankly the right to bear arms hasn’t had that much impact on my life. I know people who own guns. I’ve been shooting. I can load and accurately fire a small handgun, rifle, and shotgun. Is it something I think about every day? Hardly. But to those who like to jump up and down and scream that guns are evil and should be banned, because the common citizen doesn’t need them, I ask this; does the banning of firearms, and the lack of a right to own them, eliminate crime? We all know the answer to that one. If you take away guns, criminals use knives, if you take away knives, they would use baseball bats and clubs, if you took those away they would use their fists, so short of cutting their hands off, you’re not going to stop criminals from committing crimes. Not all of them. Much like drugs, if you take away one weapon, they’ll find another, or invent another. I read UK newspapers. I see the crimes that are committed there, in the gunless society. It’s no better than the US.

    Guns should not be used against fellow citizens. But taking away those guns will not provide safety for those citizens, not in any way, shape, or form. As long as there are people out there who want to kill other people, there will be murders. It’s sad, but true.

  • Pyderz

    Sounded as if at the start people were just shouting off names of guns they played with on Modern Warfare 2 lol Only reason i recognized them.

    Good list.

  • Linc Allen

    To towerclimber: I’m sheltered? You were obviously raised in an NRA family, meaning you get gun facts like the KKK gets race facts. I believe you should be able to own and carry a gun. I don’t believe however that you should be able to own as many guns as you do.

  • daxxenos

    @Didion (444):
    The Jaeger had a shorter, heavier barrel, and were built by “Dutchies” based on the earlier, first actual hunting rifles that Germans brought to the New World. The stock and brass reflect and show derivations of the “Schutzen” rifles that more recent German immigrants used in the almost universal weekend shooting picnics that were so popular right up until the early part of the 20th century outside most US cities.

  • daxxenos

    @KiwiMatt (457):
    O it’s Tommy this, an’ Tommy that, an’ “Tommy, go away”;
    But it’s “Thank you, Mister Atkins”, when the band begins to play,
    The band begins to play, my boys, the band begins to play,
    O it’s “Thank you, Mister Atkins”, when the band begins to play.

    It’s thugs like me (1st Bn, 10th Marines), that died so you aren’t now speaking Japanese. I really have to wonder if it was worth it.

  • Eclecticpoet

    @KiwiMatt

    “Despicably entering at the finale of a colossal global war after all others had made tremendous civilian and military sacrifices is not anything to be proud of.”

    Despicably? What type of faulty logic do you have that would make you think thousands upon thousands of soldiers dying alongside their British counterparts were in any way despicable?

    “All Al-Qaeda wants is for you to leave their part of the world alone. Leave them alone and they will leave you alone.”

    Really? Try telling that to the train riders in Madrid or the people in the twin towers. Oh wait we brought that on ourselves by meddling in the middle east right? Would that be defending Kuwait, supporting Israel against terrorism, or simply buying their oil?

    “The only real “line” that needs manning is against nuclear rogues like North Korea but we haven’t yet seen the US display any piss and vinegar to actually do anything about it.”

    So you want the US to handle North Korea all by themselves? So when we went that route in Iraq we were wrong because we should have involved more countries and had more discussions. Now we’re wrong because we are having more discussions with (gasp!) more countries involved? How completely stupid of us! Thank you for showing us the way oh wise one.

    “As we all know soldiers are drawn from the lower levels of society, what I am suggesting here is that you are not paid to think so don’t attempt it lad.”

    We all know this eh? Is that from experience that you “know” this, or are you simply couching your own bigoted view in the veil of “common knowledge”? Also, we don’t have a caste system in the US, so what do you mean by “lower levels”? Apparently I am in them since I served in the military for eight years. I wonder how on earth I managed to get a bachelor’s degree in biology and a job as a molecular biologist in a global corporation. I guess my violence-crazed half neuron of a brain must have fired just right for the random scribblings of my hand to become the right answers to tests and correct chemical structures of molecules. Otherwise I would just be a knuckle dragging killer right?

    The next time you decide to talk out of your ass you should probably wipe first.

  • archangel

    If I may draw an extreme analogy…

    Arms race. It seems that many people would prefer to own firearms to defend themselves. Great, protect yourselves. But perhaps, think outside yourself? What did the Cold War arms race do to humanity? Reasoning: defending America against the potential of the USSR breaking in through the door and firing a shot. M.A.D.

    I’m not saying its the arms themselves. Obviously intentions count, and counter-suspicion. However, what would happen if all countries in the world were allowed nuclear arsenals? Self-protection right? If defending yourself is a right, then shouldn’t Syria, Iraq, Venezuela be allowed nuclear arsenals in case some big bad great power comes knocking through their door?

    Perhaps, this analogy is too extreme, and possibly, unfair. But… just a thought.

  • daxxenos

    @Linc Allen (468):

    Oh, another one of those ‘metro-sexuals’ that swish though the day, expecting others to actually defend them. You aren’t worth it.
    I grew up with guns, with a family tradition dating back to Jamestown, the Civil War, Schutzenfests, up to shooting rats at the town dump when I was 12. I’ve fired and can field strip every one of the guns on this list, and until I started getting demonized by limp wristed teddy the-woman-drowner kennedy suckups like you, I never thought twice about it. Now however, you’re the Enemy. No quarter, no forgiveness, no remorse.

    And when all those Marines get back from overseas, explain to them why they can no longer be trusted…

  • Warnerrr

    “Its caliber was sufficient to flip a charging man backward off his feet.”

    This is false.

  • Renegade

    @ KiwiMatt (457)

    “As we all know soldiers are drawn from the lower levels of society, what I am suggesting here is that you are not paid to think so don’t attempt it lad.”

    Open mouth, insert foot buddy. What in the name of GOD makes you think, remotely, that the lower levels of society are stupid? Poverty does not necessarily equate to stupidity. A person’s intelligence is not based off of what part of society they’re born into. Sure, they don’t always get as great of schooling. However that doesn’t make them stupid. I bet you easily half of these people who are a a part of these “lower levels of society” would be educating your ass how to survive if you were put in that situation. Just because someone isn’t walking around strutting a PhD doesn’t make them stupid.

    Secondly, what kind of bullshit is this that soldiers aren’t paid to think? Do you know ANYTHING about combat at ALL? How do you think soldiers who get trapped behind enemy lines manage to get back? I say we give you a gun and drop your smug ass in that situation, then we’ll find out who’s getting paid to think. People who are soldiers DO get paid to think, just not the same way you do when you sit in your cushy little office. They think to survive and keep others alive, you think about how best to kiss your boss’ ass and get a promotion.

    Take your shit and shove it, because one day if your country’s being invaded, you’re going to be thanking god that you do have these soldiers to come and save your ass.

  • US Marine (In Repose)

    @KiwiMatt (457):
    Actually Mattilde, New Zealand wasn’t there during the Cold War. At it’s height you banned our warships from your ports. Why? Because NZ gets to pose as some Hobbit paradise while leaching off the admittedly paltry Defense budgets of the rest of the West. Marines just like me garrisoned NZ during WWII while NZ she-males (can’t call them men) were manning ambulances somewhere. NZ women seemed to prefer us anyway! Of all the pipsqueak places whose gnat-like buzzing gets ignored by all, NZ is the place. So buzz on.

    Ahem. Er, Mattilde. Your pussy is showing!

  • Jay

    If you can read this thank a teacher, if you can read this in English thank a marine.

  • bucslim

    I hate to come off like a wuss on this, and I’ve only briefly scanned through the comments so far – yes I did read Randall’s post. I like Mad magazine better, but he seems to make a fair point.

    I understand that it’s in the constitution. If you aren’t from here, I can see why you might think that point is insane. Especially how far some people are willing to take it, like if I don’t agree with their position they’ll friggen shoot me or something. Additionally with the headlines recently with kids blowing away their classmates on campus.

    I’ve never owned anything other than a .410 shotgun that I went hunting with. Twice. When I was in High School. I don’t have that pea shooter anymore and frankly, I don’t really miss it all that much. I know some people get a bulge in their Carharts thinking about hunting, but it wasn’t my thing. That being said, there have been times where it seems sensible to just do away with all of this madness and grind them into something useful, like more knives and forks for us to eat our way into cholesterol nirvana.

    The cliche of guns don’t kill people, people kill people always makes my eyes roll over like a dead goldfish. Yes people kill people, but if you don’t want to go through the hassle of cutting them up Dahmer style in preparation of Asian stew, or they won’t sit still long enough for the pillow over the mouth technique, then the most convenient way is to shoot them. And you can pretty much pick one up anywhere legally or otherwise. Gang members aren’t boasting of the size of their butter knives, combatants aren’t going to win anything with slingshots. Automatic weapons are the difference makers. We can trace that development through history that the army with the most technologically advanced weaponry usually held sway, unless you’re with Mel Gibson and a bunch of sweaty guys in skirts.

    Our laws about guns and the rednecks who uphold them are somewhat of an embarrassment, true. But I do know plenty of good honest people who own guns, go hunting or to the range that aren’t rednecks or crazy or criminal or embarrassing. We want responsible gun ownership 100 percent of the time, but that’s never going to happen. So my point is, if we are going to defend the right to own fire arms, we should make them harder to obtain than getting Paris Hilton’s virginity back. And if you commit a crime with one, well let’s just say the boys down at the pen aren’t going to have trouble finding their way to your backside.

    I don’t own one, but I have often thought of having one. My reasons aren’t what you might think they would be. I’m not that concerned with some extra y chromosome geezer breaking down my door and demanding my money or my life. First of all, I don’t have any money or valued possessions. Alright you can have my new queen mattress I just purchased, but I’m not going to help you carry it out. Secondly, there ain’t gonna be a mass of people who’re going to mourn my passing. The most I can hope for is my boss raising an eyebrow at the weekly staff meeting and then they find my bloated carcass a week later after I miss the next staff meeting.

    No, I just want to strap the body holster over my naked chest, thrust my arm out as the spring loaded .45 then cradles into my sweaty palm and I’ll repeat non stop, “Are you looking at me? Well I’m the only one standing here!”

  • American

    To answer the question, that is a basic HUMAN right. All adults, everywhere, have, or should have, that right and capability.

    To our friends across the pond: Please do not pretend to lecture us on our Constitution. There is a reason our founding father’s put the second amendment in there and it has a lot to do with your country and your inability to manage your “kings”.

    To those of you who think that guns are scary: Please grow up and stop living in your fantasy world. You’re only damaging, and endangering, yourself and your family with that attitude.

  • fredlester

    Nice question Jfrater.

    First, every Iraqi home is allowed to have one fully auto AK47. Americans are not allowed this. This has been reported in the news, and I saw this policy while watching a documentary. the u.s. military frequently checks homes for the rifle. I think everyone is allowed to engage in self defense, both from other citizens and the government. What type of self-defense may be up for debate. here in the U.S. it was decided that semi-auto long guns and pistols is considered the highest level of self defense even though other more volatile means such as rocket launchers, fully auto weapons, bullet proof vests, armourd cars, tanks, armed helicopters, armed planes, grenades, etc. are also available.

  • ianz09

    @flamehorse (454): I would, but I suck at writing lists. Plus idk what to write about, I’m not too into the controversial lists, unlike yourself :) I’ll try to write something someday. Keep on instigating FlameHorse! :)

  • ianz09

    @fredlester (480): Sorry, quick correction: It was FlameHorse’s question.

  • adambuckman

    I’m not sure that photo you have is the same as Eastwood’s gun in Dirty Harry. I recall his .44 magnum had a long barrel — which is why it looked so fiercesome. Please clarify, for your sake, if not mine and others.

    Cordially,

    Me

  • archiealt

    @US Marine (In Repose) (476):

    My friend, you are a tool. Here’s hoping you get shot.

    @Renegade (475):

    ‘Poverty does not necessarily equate to stupidity’

    Most of the time it does. Sad but true. What ‘kiwimatt’ said was bang on the money.

    @daxxenos (470):

    Don’t dare equate yourselves to the men/women who fought in the wars of the 20th century you ignorant bastard.

  • renegade01

    @archiealt (484):

    Hmm I don’t know if I agree about most of the time. There are plenty of people in poverty who are indeed beneath the ideal intelligence level. However look at the education system they get to work with. It’s not that they’re stupid, they’re just not educated, and that isn’t the same thing. Intelligence can be a measure of education, however education cannot be a measure of intelligence.

  • renegade01

    lol, sorry for the double post but I believe I just contradicted myself with my wording. That second sentence would be better said as “There are plenty of people in poverty who are considered to be stupid.

  • US Marine (In Repose)

    Archie? Fucking Archie? What kind of yobbo name is that? Cockney or just cocksucker? You must fancy yourself a street fighting football hooligan, because there ain’t no way you’ve worn the Queen’s worsted wool. Archibald is one of those pretentious names the Brit working class lay on their bastard sons to give ’em class they do! So stupidity is like one of those things in which you must be expert, you poor arsehole… Your posts are like your courage: you rush out of the protective crowd of fellow drunks to toss a bottle, then run back into the crowd and disappear. Get your back up there boyo! Why don’t you take that shot at me? I’ve been shot at by real men, so wankers like you make me giggle!

  • FATSEXY

    The problem I have with these lists is that they all list the 1911 as number one, not based on the superiority of the 1911 over modern guns, because that superiority does not exist, but rather for the influence it has on modern guns.

    Which is great. It’s the most influential gun. It’s still not the best. You can take a $700 out of the box Sig and have a gun that is mechanically more accurate than a full house custom 1911.

    Anyway. I don’t hate the 1911, but I don’t overrate it to the status of Magic Death Ray like many do.

  • deadwolverine

    Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. These, among others, are a man’s inalienable rights. Therefore, I have the right to defend my life and my liberty. At the moment, guns are the best tools available to me to defend those rights. Ergo, I am entitled to whatever firepower I deem necessary–yes, even a Ma Deuce. Nobody else has the right to tell me how I may defend myself–that would infringe my freedom. Anyone who disagrees with this, as a matter of some misguided social policy, is either an idiot or has not thought about the matter in depth. Hitler made it illegal for private citizens to own guns, before his government killed 6-8 million jews, gypsies etc. Stalin made it illegal for citizens to own guns and he liquidated 15-20 million people by some counts (numbers are still sketchy). Mao took away guns and killed more than 70 million of his own people — SEVENTY MILLION! In one century, more than 100,000,000 UNARMED people died due to actions of their own governments. Think this can’t happen in the US? Ever heard of Waco? Ruby Ridge? The Nisei? If someone misuses a gun, then make THEM pay for it. Do not try to destroy my freedom because of the actions of somone else. I understand UK and Australia are even banning knives now. I cannot understand how their citizens could stand for this–laying bare their society to robbers, muggers, killers. People are being prosecuted for defending themselves with clubs, even in their own homes. Incredible. Compare the rate of burglary in UK to Florida. UK going through the roof, even when people are in the house. In Florida, rate has dropped substantially. Only one reason–crooks are afraid of getting shot. If a criminal puts my life at risk through their actions, their life is forfeit at my option. Nuff said.

  • Tennessee Budd

    Great list!
    I’m new here. Is Randall always so abrasive, narcissistic, and holier-than-thou? And how can he possibly see to type with his head so far up his own ass?
    archieault, wishing that on anyone is vile. You are a low son of a crack whore–and that’s offensive to crack whores.

  • archiealt

    @US Marine (In Repose) (487):

    My names not archie you fool. Still, nice to see you’re perpetuating the ‘stupid marine’ cliche.

    @Tennessee Budd (490):

    You accuse me of being vile and then label one of my parents a crack whore….interesting. I of course do not wish US marine to actually get shot, i’m sure he has a family who would miss his cutting humour. However I feel it did a good job of voicing my feelings towards him.

  • harleycowboy

    Ness
    October 7th, 2009 at 1:56 am

    You USED to have the right but your country has since eliminated that right and will shortly remove what’s left of your rights and liberties.

  • US Marine (In Repose)

    @archiealt (491):
    Archie called me stupid! Archie called me stupid!
    You’re no football hooligan. You’re a schoolgirl. I won’t be dueling with a schoolgirl. Go play with yourself.

  • harleycowboy

    Barney Frank
    You were doing good until you got to point B and then you lost it.

  • mojo

    Springfield M1903 bolt-action .30-06?

  • harleycowboy

    I have heard quite a few Americans calling out Muslims for blindly following a 1300+ year old edict. They are however OK to blindly follow the 2nd Amendment that was passed 218 years ago.

    I can’t find anywhere in the 2nd amendment to go kill somebody. In the Koran, not a problem.

  • harleycowboy

    But this is just my opinion and as an American tha is one thing I love… freedom of speech!

    Brought to you courtesy of the 2nd amendment

  • Randall

    @harleycowboy (494):

    That post wasn’t *really* by anyone named “Barney Frank.” It was written by ME… see post # 130.

    Care to tell me just how I “lost it” when I reached “point B”?

  • harleycowboy

    I have been attacked/mugged by two larger than average sized men, and I was not thinking about hurting them, I was thinking about escape!

    And you obviously succeeded. What about the next time when there is no escape? And you can forget about locked doors and windows. That’s just to keep out the casual evil doers.

  • Randall

    @Tennessee Budd (490):

    “I’m new here. Is Randall always so abrasive, narcissistic, and holier-than-thou?”

    Yup. He is. Are you always such a gigantic ass-wipe that you show up for the first time on someone’s door step and immediately begin flinging shit at them?

    Not that one ought to expect better from someone who is evidently from Tennessee…

    “And how can he possibly see to type with his head so far up his own ass?”

    I think the larger question here is how you, being an apparently illiterate bog-dweller, actually has the gall to pop in and throw some smack around about me without actually addressing me directly.

    Got a problem with my arguments, logic, or various points? Open up. Don’t like me personally? Ignore me, and go on to contribute to the discussion in whatever way you can.

    YOU, however, who by your own admission is a new poster, made the classy decision to offer as your FIRST post a total waste of space. You said nothing, contributed nothing, and simply chose to insult people. Great first step, Snuffy Smith.

  • harleycowboy

    You see we have higher rates of assault than our American neighbours – how many of those assaults would have been murders had a handgun been available at the time?

    You’re saying you have a people problem with all the assaults? Of the “presumed deaths” how many would have been self-defense?

  • harleycowboy

    You see we have higher rates of assault than our American neighbours – how many of those assaults would have been murders had a handgun been available at the time?

    You’re saying you have a people problem with all the assaults? Of the “presumed deaths” how many would have been self-defense from an assault?

  • mom424

    @harleycowboy (502): at least here, assault complaints often end up with both participants being charged – would you rather one of them ended up dead? Also, according to US statistics, even those using firearms as self defense often end up dead – not quite so likely when the gun is taken out of the equation.

  • norkio

    I’d have liked to see the Gatlin gun on here – the original automatic weapon. I don’t love guns and I don’t own one, but to have a list of the 10 greatest firearms and not even include the Gatlin gun or even the original Winchester rifle, that’s a shame.

  • Edward

    For “7 cm
    October 7th, 2009 at 1:49 am

    About the question: WE don’t need guns…”

    It’s better to have a gun and not need it, than to need a gun and not have one…

  • KiwiMatt

    @470 daxxenos
    A Kiwi split the atom, which allowed you guys to bomb Hiroshima, we’ll share that one pal and the world owes you nothing.

    @1 Eclecticpoet
    We actually you did. All Bin Laden says is leave us alone, they have no beef with your way of life they just don’t want you interfering in theirs. Terrorist attacks on Israel? Try looking at what they are doing to their neighbors and then you might realise why they are aggrieved, although you might have to get out from under that rock first.

    While you don’t have a caste system (reference to India?) like all counteries you certainly have levels of social class, the lower of which fill the army. Congrats on the fantasy Mexican degree by the way.

    @476 US Marine (In Repose)
    Correct – we are a tiny nation but we don’t care and never seek approval from anyone else, displayed by not allowing your ships into our harbors. We didn’t expect you to care, we just didn’t want your presence or opinion.

    Hey fella we were fighting the Communists over in Vietnam with ya. I do regret however that we couldn’t do more to stop you having to leave with your tail between your legs. Sucks to get an arse kicking from a bunch of villagers thought right?

    She males? You guys are the only ones who require pads and helmets to run around with a football. It appears that your pussies are showing every day on ESPN. Pansy.

    As archieal said it’s shame you haven’t been shot, but there is no danger of that as you were either an army cook or you military experience was sitting in front of a xbox. No one is fooled tough guy.

  • bucslim

    @Randall (500):

    Did you just pull out a Snuffy Smith reference. Great all three of us who actually know what that is applaud you.

  • Woyzeck

    Just a REMINDER for some of those who obviously haven’t bothered to read it… there is a comment FAQ.

    Now let’s have an end to the foolishness.

  • Woyzeck

    Why has my comment disappear? I want these questions answered right here, right now.

  • GiantFlyingRobo

    @Randall (500): Ahh, good old Randall! Always being a pretentious and stand-offish- yet witty, smart, and funny- jerkwad. May your awesomeness be with us.

  • Dave

    One of the cornerstones of America is the Judeo-Christian ethic, which acknowledges the intrinsic value of every man. A criminal mentality doesn’t accept that. So I wouldn’t pass around guns to people who don’t embrace that ethic.

    Having said that, remember that the first thing done to control people has always been to take away their weapons.

  • Rick

    @apepper (10):

    I use fire arms to protect family. In 30 years of carrying a hand gun, I’ve never had to shoot in self defense. They’re nothing but tools. Each firearm has a different function. A kid with a chainsaw could cause as much carnage. Or, a knife…and that would be way harder to stop if everyone was unarmed. And not everyone in the U.S. is. It goes from state to state regarding the laws of carry. (permits that is…) Do the bad guys carry guns? Yes. But there are far more good guys that have guns than them. Don’t believe all the liberal/labour hype regarding this topic.

    Regards, Rick/Dallas, Tx., U.S.A.

  • Woyzeck

    @Rick (511):

    “I use fire arms to protect family. In 30 years of carrying a hand gun, I’ve never had to shoot in self defense.”

    Yeah, and obviously everyone in America has the same experience and that’s why there is THIRTY-THREE THOUSAND FUCKING GUN MURDERS EVERY FUCKING YEAR IN THE UNITED FUCKING STATES OF AMERICA, YA DUMB FUCKING SQUID.

    “They’re nothing but tools.”

    You can’t build with guns. “oh yeah, I built this house with my own two pistols”. No-one has ever said that before because if they did they would be FUCKING INSANE.

    “Each firearm has a different function.”

    Yeah, some of them make good paperweights, others can be used to tune pianos. THEY ALL HAVE THE SAME BASIC FUNCTION – THEY’RE TO FUCKING SHOOT THINGS WITH.

    AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARGGGHH

  • US Marine (In Repose)

    @KiwiMatt (506):
    BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz….

  • 2nd admen

    Interesting that most of the people who don’t belive Gun ownership is a universal right are from countries where the population isn’t “free” (1st admen type rights are restricted, among others) The second admendment protects all the others. Which is why we have LOWER levels of violence than most other places (except the cities where guns are “banned”… go figure)

  • Rick

    If someone broke into my house and I didn’t have a firearm I’d probably have to go to the next best thing…an axe…a hachet…a hammer…a kitchen knife…everything’s a tool… you tool…

  • Woyzeck

    514, 2nd admen –

    OK fucktard, I’m going to break this down into easily digestible chunks for you. First of all, most of the comments on this list by non-Americans are from people who live in countries which guarantee rights EQUAL TO OR GREATER THOSE IN AMERICA in every respect except gun ownership. Second of all, America has HIGHER, yes FUCKING HIGHER levels of violence than most civilised nations along with levels of fear and paranoia which are FUCKING UNPARALLELED anywhere else in the Western Hemisphere. Thirdly, violence isn’t higher in these cities BECAUSE GUNS ARE BANNED, GUNS ARE BANNED BECAUSE VIOLENCE IS HIGHER!

    FUCKING DUUUUH!!!

    JESUS SHITTING CHRIST.

  • Woyzeck

    “If someone broke into my house and I didn’t have a firearm I’d probably have to go to the next best thing…an axe…a hachet…a hammer…a kitchen knife…everything’s a tool… you tool…”

    QUOTE OF THE FUCKING CENTURY: “everything’s a tool”.

    If I didn’t have my cat, Hermann, I’d probably have the next best thing… a dog, a gerbil, a fucking zebra, an anaconda… because EVERYTHING’S A FUCKING CAT… you RETARD.

  • Rick

    @Woyzeck (516):

    I would recomend you see a proctologist as you’re definately full of something. And also notice, I didn’t resort to foul words or name calling in this conversation which proves two points: A) Your knuckles drag as you walk and B) You can only reach low hanging fruit.

  • archiealt

    @Woyzeck (517):

    I’m loving your anger my friend. It’s very funny and very justified. Good work.

  • MarkMac

    re your bonus question – its a simple fact that countries with widespread gun ownership, whether legal or not, have higher levels of violent death. As for China – you’re assuming a sizeable percentage of chinese are opposed to their govt. Not so. And anyway, the rebels in the areas which are trying for self-rule /are/ armed. I need hardly comment on Iraq.

    Interesting list by the way, but the AK should have been top.

  • k1w1taxi

    @2nd admen (514):

    WTF is the 1st and 2nd admen, is that some new cable show?

    Now a simple geography lesson for all the fucktards that keep pointing out DC and Chicago as lessons for not removing guns.

    Q1. How big (in square miles) are these cities?
    Q2. Do the areas surrounding these cities have booming gun stores just over the border from the gun free zone?
    Q3. How difficult is it to drive to these gun stores?

    So fucktards of course it doesn’t work as guns are still easily available to anyone in those areas that wants one. The problem is not one that can be solved on a piecemeal basis. It has to be federal or nothing.

    Cheers
    Lee

  • Woyzeck

    518, Rick the Asshole:

    “I would recomend you see a proctologist as you’re definately full of something.”

    I think you mean full of SHIT. And you spout so much shit that I’ve had to RIP THE FUCKING WINDOW WIPERS OFF MY CAR AND PUT THEM ON THE FUCKING COMPUTER SCREEN JUST TO CARRY ON THIS FUCKING CONVERSATION. I also have my highbeam headlamps on. It’s not the law, but it is safer and more courteous to other drivers.

    “And also notice, I didn’t resort to foul words or name calling in this conversation”

    Because I thought of it first BITCH.

    “which proves two points”

    IT PROVES NOTHING. Now why don’t you go back to Home Depot and buy a set of real tools leave the gun control debate to those of us whose house was built out of bricks and mortar rather than bullets and.. well, fucking mortar fire I guess.

    CHECK-FUCKING-MATE, SHIT FOR BALLS FOR TITS FOR BRAINS.

  • Woyzeck

    519 – THANKYOU. FINALLY after half an hour of posting some fucking RECOGNITION.

    520: “I need hardly comment on Iraq.”

    Oh, BY ALL MEANS. We’d all LOVE to hear what YOU have to say about IRAQ. Shh, pull up a chair folks, MarkMac is going to tell us all HIS VIEWS ON IRAQ. I can’t FUCKING wait.

    That wasn’t sarcasm by the way, I’d genuinely love to hear it.

  • Solly

    Wow.

    “Randall” certainly is a self-righteous, foul-mouthed, pompous windbag, isn’t he?

  • GiantFlyingRobo

    @Woyzeck (517): Wow. Seriously, can you try to make a sentence w/o a F-bomb? And what did that guy do to you? And see, did you notice I typed 2 whole sentences without once using the F word? It must be astonishing for you, really.

  • Maggot

    @Solly (524): Wow. “Randall” certainly is a self-righteous, foul-mouthed, pompous windbag, isn’t he?

    [sigh]

  • Aleksandr

    @Bry (137) It appears to be a Microtech OTF automatic knife.

  • k1w1taxi

    @deadwolverine (489):

    Actually Mao killed many of his people while they were not only armed but fighting on his side.

    Also the lack of gun ownership by the populace had less to do with Mao, and Stalin’s ability to control their people than the many other cultural and fear conditioning they were able to call on against a largely uneducated and compliant populace. Hitler of course achieved his ends not because he denied his countrymen guns but because he pandered to there prejudices.

    My country has strict gun laws yet I have as much right to free speech as any US citizen. My government is not looking to oppress me in any more violent or extreme fashion than your own.

    Mean in such countries with profilic gun ownership as Zimbabwe and Somalia (fuck 80% of the entire African continent)you can tell me how wonderfully free and peaceful life is for the average citizen.

    Cheers
    Lee

  • Woyzeck

    525 – GiantFlyingNosyMotherfuckerWhoCan’tKeepHisFuckingRetardedOpinionsToHimself:

    “Wow. Seriously, can you try to make a sentence w/o a F-bomb?”

    What the fuck is an ‘F-bomb’? ENGLISH MOTHERFUCKER, DO YOU SPEAK IT? Is that something to do with what the list is about?

    “And what did that guy do to you?”

    He anally penetrated my eyes with is stupid word-shits. This is the danger of indiscriminate typing.Plus, I believe he may have had an affair with my mother in 1979, I think.

    “And see, did you notice I typed 2 whole sentences without once using the F word? It must be astonishing for you, really.”

    Which F word? Are you talking about the word “Faggot”? Because I’m not gay, you fucking homophobe. And even if I was I wouldn’t bend over for you because you PROBABLY have every variety of Hepatitis under the fucking rainbow. SO YOU CAN STICK YOUR HOMOSEXUAL DESIRES UP YOUR ARSE. If you want. I won’t judge you.

  • Rick

    Motars are useful…and yes, your’e shitty language means that in a real debate…well, this is all you can resort to. In the arena of ideas and debate, you FAIL. Emotion doesn’t trump facts and logic my friend…it’s a real world. Deal with it. If you can’t then I think Spencer Gifts still have those ‘Rose Colored Glass’ for sale at 2.99 U.S…or they can be ordered through the U.N. for 3.99 U.S. with all proceeds going to all the unarmed people of Darfur..who, for whatever reason, seem to get wiped out because they won’t shoot back..

  • GiantFlyingRobo

    @Woyzeck (529): Teehee. I knew you’d reply with another F-bomb. P.S. I could take you in mano-to-mano fight.

  • k1w1taxi

    @daxxenos (470):

    So do I. Especially when some fucked Yank asshat keeps telling the whole world about how grateful we should be to them forever after.

    Lee

  • Woyzeck

    Rick the Rambunctious Retard actually thinks the way to end the CIVIL WAR in Darfur is to ARM FUCKING EVERYBODY?

    Jesus Christ! You’ll notice, buddy, that of the two of us I’m the only one who has provided any fucking facts (apart from your little advert for Spencer Gifts. Did you get paid for that? It seems completely fucking extraneous).

    And as for logic? That’s rich coming from Mr. ‘Everything’s a Tool’. TELL ME WHY I CAN’T BUILD BOOKSHELVES WITH A MUFFIN, COCKFONDLER.

  • Woyzeck

    531: “@Woyzeck (529): Teehee. I knew you’d reply with another F-bomb.”

    Da FUCK is an ‘F-Bomb’?

    “P.S. I could take you in mano-to-mano fight.”

    Ooh, internet tough guy! I shaking in my fucking polyster bodysuit.
    Unless by “fight” you meant “sweet loving”? In which case I’m sorry, but I don’t fucking swing that way twinkletoes.

  • Rick

    @Woyzeck (533):

    Goodnight. This person was dropped on their head at birth and then wiped off with a dirty nappy while the head wound was still open. He’s a flamer and still fucks his mother’s poodle in the basement. And uses a a pee bottle sitting at the screen. And God knows what else…

  • Woyzeck

    Hi, I’m Woyzeck. I’m an idiot who can’t write a coherent sentence without using “fuck” or such inspired words as “cockfondler.” Since I have so little to add to the conversation, I will simply yell at people with expletives and pretend I don’t know what f-bomb or f-word means, despite the fact that any person who speaks english knows exactly what those are. I am so incredible!

  • Woyzeck

    @Rick (535): He’s a flamer and still fucks his mother’s poodle”

    So what if I fuck a poodle you dickhumping shittard. I FUCKING DO WHAT I WANT!

  • Indrid Cold

    Disappointed.

    On lists you have a strong knowledge and interest in the result is always great. Lists like this… not so much.

    This list seems half-baked. The choices are reasonable for the most part, but very little information is provided about each gun, and much of the info provided is inaccurate. For example, the .50 BMG sabot round will NOT penetrate the armor of any modern tank, and probably not any tank made since WWI.

    Please have an outside expert write lists on subjects you don’t know about and have little interest in.

  • Woyzeck

    536 – Ha! Ha! GiantFlyingRetard wants to be me so much! Surely it can’t be simply because I so obviously outsmarted him? Shame he hasn’t the loquacity to come up with any comment which comes NEAR to the inspired genius of mine!

    Plus, you see that fucking picture in the corner of the comment there? That’s the mark of Woyzeck. Check that this Woyzeck carries a genuine fucking hologram!

    Night night, asshole! Have fun knowing that I fucking BEAT YOU!

    3… 2… 1…
    WOYZECK.

  • KiwiMatt

    @513 US Marine (In Repose).
    That bbbbbuuuuuzzzzzzzing in your ears is the sound of no friends and stupidity. Thanks for sharing it with us and confirming what we all suspected. Mwahaha.

  • JustAnotherDude

    First of all, the US National guard is not “militia” as embodied in the Second Amendment. It didn’t even exist until over 100 years later.

    Second, the “Militia” is defined in Federal Law. Go look it up and know what you are talking about.

    Third, “Well regulated” has a specific meaning in the context of the 2nd Amendment. It means “trained.” It does not mean “controlled” or even “organized.”

    To paraphrase an obscure author, “the right to own weapons is the right to be free.” And given the remarkable uptick in crime in Great Britain these days following the outlawing of the rights of self-defense, I would think that any thinking Brit would be itching to emigrate.

  • Struth

    And Woyzek wins the John Holmes Award for being the biggest dick on Listverse.

  • Woyzeck

    543 – Struth

    Why, thankyou, I guess it is pretty big *blushes*…

    You know, I don’t like to blow my own horn… but I can for $5. (copyright – someone else).

  • MikeS

    I find it interesting that so many people (especially from other countries) are coming here and basically posting, “Guns are bad! You can kill people with guns! We should ban them!”

    You know what else you can kill people with? Rope, knives, automobiles, crowbars, chainsaws, frying pans, etc. Should we ban all that stuff too? Wouldn’t want anyone to get hurt, right?

    While we’re banning stuff, what about emotional hurting? Maybe we should ban hate speech. Or even simple name-calling. You may also be offended by swearing, so we’d better ban that. Actually, I think olive-green is a pretty offensive color. We’d better ban it… or any other color that may be offensive.

    I know I’m going to a philosophical extreme, but seriously, were does it start and where does it stop? You can have a nanny-state government shelter you from everything, or you can have freedom. I, for one, chose freedom.

  • Struth

    Woyzek 544 – Ha ha, touche.

  • Woyzeck

    545 – Mike –

    You know what, you fucking moron, none of those other things are designed exclusively to kill people. None of those other things have ever been used to perpetrate a school massacre. None of those other things result in innocent bystanders getting splattered all over the shop. And none of those things kill THIRTY-THREE THOUSAND PEOPLE A FUCKING YEAR in the USA (granted, automobiles kill a lot more than that but hey, you can’t hop in a rifle and go on a roadtrip).

    “but seriously, were does it start and where does it stop?”

    Er, with guns? Why legislate fucking everything if you’re so scared of fucking legislation?

    “You can have a nanny-state government shelter you from everything, or you can have freedom. I, for one, chose freedom”

    Or you can choose a fucking sane country like those found in most of the rest of the Western world where you are free to walk down any street FREE from the fear of some retard gettin’ all trigger-happy and exercising his right to behave like a fucking psychopath.

  • Woyzeck

    “I find it interesting that so many people (especially from other countries) are coming here and basically posting, “Guns are bad! You can kill people with guns! We should ban them!””

    “People from other countries”? This site is run by a fucking New Zealander, dude. Not everybody lives on your fucking street, cumgobbler.

  • sumutai

    Randall….Alamo
    Alamo….Randall

    Hmmmmmmmmm.

    I’ve never seen the two of them in the same room…..

  • Randall

    Woyzeck, you are my new best friend. Finally, someone on this site who shares my love of seething anger sieved through a screen made of bile.

    “Cuz I thought of it first, BITCH.”

    I laughed my fucking ass off.

  • Randall

    “That’s rich coming from Mr. ‘Everything’s a Tool’. TELL ME WHY I CAN’T BUILD BOOKSHELVES WITH A MUFFIN, COCKFONDLER.”

    Genius! Pure fucking genius! I laughed so hard my collarbone hurt!

    Take note, Listverse old-timers. Believe it or not, I am tame compared to some friends of mine. I have an old friend from college *who talks just like this* (that is, like Woyzek) all the time. I know from experience, therefore, that we are in the presence of an artist.

  • Woyzeck

    Such praise from Randall – I’m touched!

    Hope your collarbone gets well soon.

  • ianz09

    @Woyzeck (552): Dude, at first I wanted to be like “this guy is kind of a dick,” but I’ve been laughing at pretty much all of your posts. So that kind of trumps negativity. Plus you made Randall laugh, a feat I haven’t been able to accomplish as far as I know.

  • Struth

    @ianz09 (553): I agree Ianz09 that’s exactly how I felt, I wanted to be annoyed by the constant swearing but he just got funnier.

  • ianz09

    @Struth (554): I know. I can’t lie, he’s funny as hell.

  • GiantFlyingRobo

    @Woyzeck (535): Well, I’m not saying I’m a tough guy, just that I could kill you by stepping on you. ‘Cuz I’m giant, Foo’.

  • GiantFlyingRobo

    @ianz09 (553): Meh, I still don’t like him. He seems…too much like a Randall knock-off. And I’ve already kinda ticked him off… oh well, I don’t care. ;)

  • GiantFlyingRobo

    @Woyzeck (540): Dude, not to burst your bubble, but I kinda outsmarted you. I just wrote that crap because I thought you’d flame me and act like a dick, which usually amuses me. And guess what? I was right. But I’m offering a truce, let’s just not reply to each ever again.

  • tag

    Guns don’t kill people,
    Hydrostatic Shock
    and
    blood loss does

  • ianz09

    @GiantFlyingRobo (557): idk, he’s just funny man, don’t tell me you didn’t lol at some of his stuff

  • GiantFlyingRobo

    @ianz09 (560): Well, it might be because he DID flame me.

  • GiantFlyingRobo

    @tag (559): lulz

  • sumutai

    FACT: at least 48.943% of the comments on this list are from some kind of RandallWoyZeckAlamo(orfollowerthereof) hybrid.

    I love this site. If I could gather my thoughts for a second I’d try to post a serious comment. But, I’d be wasting my time, and yours.

    What do anal sex and celery have in common?

  • bla bala bal

    What about the Lugar…WW2.
    ????

  • sumutai

    ….if you’ve been forced to have them as a child..you’ll hate them as an adult.

    Chortle guffaw.

  • ianz09

    @sumutai (563): What?

  • ianz09

    @sumutai (565): Daniel Tosh?

  • GiantFlyingRobo

    I wonder if Woyzeck even read my last comments…

  • Flock O’Seagulls

    JFrater–

    I’m not naming names or anything…..Woyzeck…..but someone here seriously needs banning.

  • sumutai

    @ianz09 (567): #

    certainly not mine…Never heard of Daniel Tosh ( apart from the brief Google research just now)….but received that via a text message a few days ago..I laughed my socks off.

    Hats off to Dan T if it’s his joke :)

  • GiantFlyingRobo

    Ohh! Guys, lets try to make enough comments to pass the 1000 mark! It’ll be awesome, and mean nothing at all! But it’d still be awesome!

  • flamehorse

    JFrater, please tell me Woyzeck’s silence indicates that he’s been banned.

  • GiantFlyingRobo

    Pssh, like Jamie’s reading this. And I sense he’ll be coming back…SOON! Mwahaha!

  • GiantFlyingRobo

    Woyzeck, that is.

  • Sergei

    In Soviet Russia, trigger pull you!

  • Adam Mk 1 Mod 0

    @ cm “WE don’t need guns…”

    Try being held at gunpoint for an hour by a burglar when you’re ten years old and then say that you don’t need a gun. A lot of things can happen in an hour. An imaginative ten year old can think of all those things. Do you think the cops came? The problem with cops is that you have to be able to call them before they show up. Sure, you can say “if guns were illegal, you couldn’t be held at gunpoint.” Except that criminals don’t follow laws, they’re criminals, they don’t care about legal and illegal. So let’s disarm the law abiding citizens who are responsible with guns so that they’ll be easier targets. That’s a great idea.

    Besides, why would we have to NEED guns to be allowed to own them? Next you’ll have to prove that you need a car. They’re pretty dangerous.

  • GiantFlyingRobo

    @Adam Mk 1 Mod 0 (576): Good point, but Woyzeck’ll rip it shreds as soon as he gets his mitts on it.

  • GiantFlyingRobo

    So…lonely here without Woyzeck or Ianz. [sigh] [sniff, sniff] :(

  • ianz09

    @GiantFlyingRobo (578): Just jerk off ’til one of them gets here.

  • evan

    YES to firearms! YES to firearms!
    Folks don’t understand what firearms do for good people. Most of these folks commenting on this list haven’t ever handled or been taught how to handle a firearm safely and responsibly. YES, there are MILLIONS of Americans, and MILLIONS of others around the globe that are responsible with a firearm(s). No, we aren’t ALL lunatic hillbilly hyper-conservatives toting bullets and bibles. Firearms unite a large demographic of men and women for self-defense, hunting and sporting purposes. NONE of these good folks are interested in committing crimes, only protecting themselves and their families against said acts. From experience, criminals DO use firearms in home invasions, and aren’t afraid to do anything illegal. Citizens have EVERY right to not like, enjoy, use or own firearms. I respect those opinions, but I do wish these same folks could have a chance to have an enjoyable experience using firearms before they totally shut down the right to bear arms. Thanks for reading, and great list! I too would include the M1 Garand for the #1 spot, it is a beautiful firearm that aided the heros of WWII in defeating the Nazi regime.

  • GiantFlyingRobo

    @ianz09 (579): That sounded really bad… you need to prooofresd,. masn.

  • ianz09

    @GiantFlyingRobo (581): I don’t need to prrofread, I mean everything I say! Regardless of mispeling or sense with the not making.

  • GiantFlyingRobo

    And didn’t you just get here?!?

  • ianz09

    @GiantFlyingRobo (583): … Did I?

  • GiantFlyingRobo

    Kinda…

  • Chanchita

    Just heard a good one – Guns don´t kill people, people do. In that case, is it pens that mis-spell words?

  • GiantFlyingRobo

    Man, I hate to admit it, but I miss Woyzeck. You know, I kinda miss calling me gay, dropping F-bombs, not knowing what F-bombs are, and the like. Those where the times, eh?

  • KK

    I think its about time we talked about the right to arm bears…

  • Green Eyes

    Team Chanchita :)

    Oh and I HEART Woyzeck – too much funny.

  • redc1c4

    in between all the pedantic non-discussion of the right to keep and bear arms, did anyone mention the various technical errors in the posting? for one, Ma Deuce doesn’t cycle at 1200 RPM. never has, never will.

    however, if you fire it long enough at night, you can see the rounds traveling down the barrel through the steel, just as, in a similar fashion, if the light is right, you can see a 45 round going down range.

    also, the AK was a knock off of the MP43/StG44

  • heavybison

    This list has had some of the best comments in a while. Whether or not you endorse the gun culture, one thing is but clear. The world is a place of contrasts, in terms of culture, environment and ancient history that leads to the current psychological state a country is in. While for some, guns are a necessity, for other’s, it’s something you see in the movies and read in the news. Ultimately though, i believe it all balances out. If you have a gun and your neighbour has a gun, you both would be wary about being the trigger happy first gun. If you don’t have guns, you depend on your fists to do the talking.
    I’d rather prefer a fracture than a bullet through my guts anyday…
    And FlameHorse, are you a lawyer by any chance?
    :-)

  • gray man

    randal, no offence but you seem to have your head up your a..
    firearms are tools
    the second ammendment is not situational
    any more then any other God given right
    where did you get your education?
    I don’t have time to comment on all your mistakes, but you seem to have an audience…keep spouting

  • 23redleader

    Wonderfull list! love #1! i bought one three years ago and i will never buy anything else for self defence.

  • Bob Blaylock

    Ms Scarlett wrote:

    » Speaking as a resident of the UK, I think
    » frankly that the American system is insane
    » and I would hate to live in a country where
    » so many people are armed.

      It’s this “insane” system, Ms. Scarlett, that allowed us to kick your people’s asses out of our country in 1776, and again in 1812, when you tried to tell us how to run our country.

  • Identiaetlos

    Good list. I would have included a few more long guns (M1 Garand and M16A1), and maybe either the Luger P08 or Walther PPK (since every manufacturer in this world is trying to copy the Walther PPK).

    I owe my life to a firearm. I owe my continued existence to the presence of firearms in my house.

    “The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.” -Thomas Jefferson

    “The two enemies of the people are criminals and government, so let us tie the second down with the chains of the constitution so the second will not become the legalized version of the first.” -Thomas Jefferson

    “The beauty of the second amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it.” -Thomas Jefferson

  • Identiaetlos

    Oh, I forgot. For the Glock. Did you mean .40 S&W or .357 Sig? I’ve never heard of .40 Sig.

  • atty

    @ myself.Yeah I thought the sig. was conspicuous by its absence.
    Personally I’d have liked to have seen the luigi franchi spas 12 pump action there too,but I guess its not the most popular shotty ever.

  • astraya

    @GiantFlyingRobo (430): Wow, what a stunning coincidence. I don’t like for your entertainment, either, nor for for your stupid comments. That makes us approximately equal in that regard but I remain your clear superior in all others.

    My forum seems best to be appreciated by people with a brain and a sense of humour, so, yes, you probably would find it stupid. Our fearless leader based a list on it, so he probably doesn’t find it stupid. (He has a brain and sense of humour.)

    That said, I must say that this discussion has really livened up since I posted that original comment, so after finishing with sex, looking at penises and wading through soup, I might return here and have a shot at firearms.

    I hope the “mam” was a typo for “man” and not an attempt at “ma’am”. The last time my wife checked, I had a penis and testicles. Either way, it is always polite to check on another poster’s gender before making any gender-specific reference.

  • macko

    Evreryone deserves the right to bear arms for their defense. Someone with a concealed weapon permit has the right to carry but can only brandish or fire that weapon in their or someone elses defense. “well regulated” militia means knowing how to properly use the firearm or properly trained per the language of the period. not limited.

    A firearm is used every thirty seconds to prevent a crime. Rarely having to be fired. A firearm is used to commit a crime about one third as often.

    The M2 fire rate was 1200 RPM when mounted on jet aircraft otherwise it was 750-850 RPM.

    The .44 mag was invented by Elmer Keith and first sold commercially in Ruger’s Blackhawk in 1957.

    Your basic 1911-A1 starts at about $600.00

    Knockdown does not mean the bullet knocks a person down(unless wearing a vest) but puts them down due to the big hole (loss of blood pressure). If a bullet truly knocked a person down it would do the same to the shooter. (action and reaction)

    The AK is an assault rifle that works best in close quarters and up to 400 yds max. It’s a machine gun that can be used as a rifle(vice versa with an M-16)It’s not a battle rifle. The M-1 was the first semi-auto battle rifle and was just as reliable but was effective at both close quarters and longer ranges(600 yds)

  • Jonny

    guns dont kill people… people do

  • Nauplius

    Guns don’t kill people…People who have to read the same stupid fucking comment over and over and over again do.

  • ianz09

    @Nauplius (601): lol

  • charlie

    if people want to kill people they will use what ever is necessary to perform the task. yes guns are easy to come by here in the united states but more people are killed in car accidents here than by guns by all of the logic i have seen here we need to ban cars right now.and since normally it is people killing people i say ban the people they are the ones doing the killing.i hope you all hear the tongue and cheek in these sayings. until we learn as a human race to get along and not fight which will never happen then i will happily bear my arms here in the good ol US of A.
    it is a great list we all have our personal opinions on weapons i think the presenter of this list did a fine job

  • DrEvil

    The US Constitution recognizes the inherent rights of humanity and no amount of ignorance, prejudice, fear or lack of character can change that. I believe in the unalienable rights of human beings. If you choose to believe that the individual exists to serve the State or society than I pity you.
    Rights are different than entitlements and privileges. The Second Amendment acknowledges an inherent right of free people which neither the State nor a fearful mob of mental serfs have the legal, moral or ethical authority to curtail.

    Have an Evil day

  • Wolfe

    The Glock also has an automatic triple safety so that it literally can not fire unless the trigger is pulled. Also, this list can never be accurate enough as there are more types of guns than all bladed weapons that ever existed. Each one suits a person best and thats all there is to it.

  • Eclecticpoet

    @KiwiMatt

    “We actually you did. All Bin Laden says is leave us alone, they have no beef with your way of life they just don’t want you interfering in theirs.”

    Of course! All that talk about us being decadent devils and less than human and cutting off heads is just their way of saying, “Hey, we respect you and all, but we would appreciate it if you would leave our country.”
    I’m sure you know this, but Bin Laden issued his first fatwa against Americans in 1996 because we were invited into Saudi Arabia during Operation Desert Shield/Storm. Saudi Arabia was against Iraq and used the “enemy of my enemy” principle to justify allowing us use of their airspace and land resources. I’m sure you’re also a good enough historian to know that Bin Laden was stripped of his Saudi Arabian citizenship in April of 1994 BY HIS OWN GOVERNMENT. Therefore, it’s really not his place to demand that we leave Saudi Arabia when he himself is persona non grata there. So your assumptions are completely false unless you were talking about the events in Iraq and Afghanistan which came after two attacks on the world trade center, an attack on a US embassy in Yemen, and an attack on the USS cole. If that is your argument you are brilliant in your utter disregard of facts in favor of pursuing ignorance. Yet, I’m the one you claim has their head under a rock? Interesting.

    “Terrorist attacks on Israel? Try looking at what they are doing to their neighbors and then you might realise why they are aggrieved, although you might have to get out from under that rock first.”

    While Israel is not completely blameless in their dealings with the Palestinians, history shows clearly that the violence has started with and been continuously used by the Palestinians towards the Israelis. If you remember your history you should recall that Jordan and Syria fomented the Palestinians to declare war on Israel because they secretly wanted to divide the newly formed Palestinian state between themselves. This was back in 1948 in case you’re wondering. Since then there have been atrocities on both sides, but if you pay attention to the news you will see that any brokered cease fire is always broken by an act of Palestinian terrorism (bus bombings, rocket firings, etc.) Meanwhile, the US is only on the side of Israel in so much as we accept their right to exist. I don’t know maybe you think that’s too radical a position to take?

    “While you don’t have a caste system (reference to India?) like all counteries you certainly have levels of social class, the lower of which fill the army.”

    What I was referring to is that you are not locked in to a position at birth. The beauty of the US and most other democratic countries is that you can move up or down in terms of social standing through your own actions. Do you have any familiarity with US military by the way? You seem to be woefully ignorant of it’s make up. The military requires a high school diploma or GED to even enter. The majority of the US military either has or is working towards an advanced degree. All commissioned officers in all branches of the US military have at least a four year college degree. If everyone in the military is so low class, where do all of the JAG officers and medical doctors come from? How about all of the nurses? Respiratory technicians? Pilots? I suppose I should just stop now as I wouldn’t want to disturb the cloud of stupidity you’ve so meticulously enshrouded yourself in.

    “Congrats on the fantasy Mexican degree by the way.”

    Thank you. Apparently it’s light years ahead of whatever educational system you were brought up in, unless you were just an extremely poor student.

  • Sarge

    If nothing else, the commentary here has surely exemplified the pussification of the British people.

  • someone else

    #7 – the 50 Cal. Loved shooting that thing.

  • GTT

    I was finally able to wade through the extra comments that have appeared since I last posted and let me tell you, it was a struggle at times. The whole dick-waving pissing contest in the 400´s was tedious at best.

    @US Marine (In Repose) (476): Your macho vitriol isnt impressing anyone… I am female (cant wait to see what misogynistic comments that´s going to get from you) and I wouldnt touch you with a ten foot pole. You do know what they say about overcompensating dont you?

  • pestomama

    See? See what I mean? 608 comments on gun ownership. More than any list I have seen here so far. It’s a good thing we don’t have guns on the Internet. We’d all be dead. Knives? Baseball bats? Bows and arrows? Not so much.

    This is ridiculous.

  • pestomama

    GTT. Overcompensating! Yes, there is a lot of that going on here!! Good for you.

  • Brass

    In the effort for intellectual honesty, if any of you anti-gun folks have a desire to learn a few facts as opposed to the many myths I’ve seen spread about here, take a look at this.

    http://www.gunfacts.info/

  • Maggot

    @GTT (609): The whole dick-waving pissing contest in the 400´s was tedious at best.

    GTT, puhleeeze. Ok, I will cut you some slack because you don’t have a dick to wave and therefore have not had much experience in these matters, but fyi – you can’t have a dick waving contest AND a pissing contest at the same time. Well, you can, but it would be horribly disastrous, with lots of collateral damage. The ensuing chaos would be far from “tedious”. Do I really need to explain the logistics to you? Come on. IMO you really need to think these things through before you post.

  • GTT

    @Maggot (613): Well, thanks a bunch for the mental picture. Randomly sprayed pee is “cute” on my 8 month old nephew when I try to change his diapers… On full grown men? I´ll pass.

  • end-of-debate

    @Greg (464): you said Kane and Able ? You mean Cain and Abel from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cain_and_Abel ?

    It seems most of the pro-fireguns on this topic are also very under-educated. Like USMarine, as the Army draw soldiers from lower class of the society.

    Knowledge is the power (and peaceful). Guns are for idiots (and killers, and killed). Americans, please, for the sake of your own country, please send your kids to school!

  • GiantFlyingRobo

    @astraya (598): You’re a guy!!!??? The only reason I called your forum stupid was because you were being a dick about something I didn’t care about, and you’re still acting like one hence the whole your my “clear superior” crap. And I do have a sense of humor, and obviously whoever reads your forum doesn’t. I mean, they have to read forums to decide what and what’s not funny, ma’an.

  • GiantFlyingRobo

    @Woyzeck (617): You’re back! With even twice as more F-bombs! And probably twice as more gay jokes formed from nothing! Hooray!!!

  • GiantFlyingRobo

    Yea, I’m right! Whoo! Welcome back Woyzeck, welcome back.

  • Woyzeck

    (619): Be advised: I don’t recommend that website for anyone who isn’t a complete fucking douche, though if you are a complete fucking retard feel free to check it out.

  • Randall

    Yeah, you know…. what kind of grown-up human being uses the term “F-Bomb,” anyway?

    Douchebags come to mind; that’s one category. Asswipes are another; perhaps also dickheads and weenies.

    Certainly, though, the all-encompassing set to cover this, which encompasses all other subsets, is “Tool.” What’s a tool, you might ask?

    John Tesh is a Tool.

    Ryan Seacrest is a Tool.

    Anyone who appears on, works on, or is any way associated with “Dancing With the Stars” is a Tool. (Except the hot chicks).

    James Cawley is a Tool.

    James Cameron is a Tool.

    And anyone who uses the term “F-Bomb” who is not a fourteen year old girl…. is a Tool.

  • GiantFlyingRobo

    @Randall (620): Well, thank you. Nice to know I can build a bookshelf.

  • Grim Jestor

    Regarding the question: Though Americans tend to take gun-ownership overboard, it truly should be a fundamental right of the individual, no matter what nationality or station in life, possess the means to defend him or herself against violence. This may be a gun, though it does not have to be. My point is simply that even the little man, the poor folk, the untouchables… should be able to strike back…

  • Woyzeck

    @Randall (620): You forget what we learned last night – everything is a tool. The people who make the Transformers movies could knock together a skyscraper in a matter of minutes.

  • US Marine (In Repose)

    @end-of-debate (615):
    Did you really correct someone else’s spelling? Write this sentence 10 times:
    Mus lern writee speekee inglis befour troling Anglophone fucking web sites.

    Like Sarge, I’m thoroughly disappointed in the emasculated remnants of the British Empire that post here. To answer the host’s questions re/ a universal right to bear arms: your countrymen have certainly responded for themselves — since they can only pry mine from my cold dead fingers. Guns are icky. God help us, Gallipoli and Tobruk were long ago glory days for NZ. I’ll bet no more than 100 Americans can name your PM; 500 max citizens of the world can name him – a world in which NZ aspires to be the quiet kid in the back of the class that nobody notices for fear of an ass whuppin’. Some putz (Wiwi Mattilde…) mumbled something about your greatest Kiwi: the guy – old what’s-his-name – who split the atom. But she couldn’t name the guy herself. Yeah you stood with us in Korea and in VN – but that was long ago. We value those 60yr/40yr old commitments by those who stood with us — but your numbers were small, and you didi mau-ed after a year or two. NZ lost its nerve at Gallipoli. Or maybe Singapore. Mattilde made some noise about the US getting beat in VN like that was a good thing for the West. NZ buggered out of a fight with Turks — but I will at least honor that bloody disaster because the Pols let the Soldiers down – just like ours did in VN. No blot on Kiwi martial courage. You just don’t seem to have any anymore. Now you think your little corner of the world is a safe harbor. Your muslim population is growing exponentially. Indonesia is not that far away. You are ripe for dhimmitude – which from all appearances is already upon you. End-of-Debate and thousands of little wog bastards like him is eating away at your core Western values. And NZ just wants to get along in that sea of Third World sludge. You’ll wish you could own guns some day soon. But you’ve turned your back on the West – so fuck ya! Oh and fuck Archibald too. (He’ll answer since his name is indeed Archie and he hates it. Tee hee!).

    Rest of you little pansies need to go look up dhimmitude since that’s the future you face.

  • Woyzeck

    @Grim Jestor (622):

    They shouldn’t have to fucking defend themselves. America needs to learn to solve it’s social problems and prevent this violence from being necessitated in the first place. Solve problems so you don’t have to shoot them. Second of all, what the fuck are the police for? America needs to sort ouut their fucking police force and instate people who can uphold the law rather than sit around corpulating, quaffing donuts and every once in a while getting all nightstick-up-your-ass, 41 shots in your motherfuckin’ head on some random black kid.

    The issue isn’t that people need guns. The issue is that people think they need guns.

  • Woyzeck

    jfrater, while you’re moderating my comments would you mind deleting the one from the dickweed in 624? “Wogs” is a little bit redneck for my taste. Mr. KKK should spend less time talking on the internet and more time masturbating over his memories of being a marine.

    I hope they’ve made it more difficult for Neo-Nazi fuckheads to get in these days.

  • GiantFlyingRobo

    Why does everyone think people from the South are all rednecks and members of the KKK? That’s not true.

  • Woyzeck

    I have no idea where in Americaa that douchebag is from, but when you talk like a fucking redneck and postulate like a member of the fucking KKK you get labelled as such. If it walks like a duck, its a duck. If it smells like shit, its a fucking redneck.

  • GiantFlyingRobo

    Oh, crap! I haven’t taken a shower in two days! I gotta go and wash the redneck offa me!

  • sumutai

    @US Marine (In Repose) (624):
    Ah bugger.

    what a shame…I was really enjoying some of the comments from both sides. I hadn’t really made up my mind on the subject (and probably still haven’t), but that little glimpse into your soul has made me question the veracity of all of your arguements…
    Which is sad, because I thought all your previous posts had a modicum of integrity about them…
    As it appears that your judgement is clouded by irrational loathing, I can’t trust anything you say now. Which renders all of your arguements invalid. A real shame.

  • OeJay

    Hey there US Marine, while KiwiMatt was being a bit of a dickhead, what a complete and utter mindless wanker you are. I’ll bet no more than 100 Americans could locate Canada on a map (just so that you know, it’s just north of the US). Frankly we’d rather that fuckwits like you in particular didn’t know we existed at all.

    Like our Aussie brothers NZ always mans up for the right fight, just like sending our SAS boys over to Afghanistan right now. When we stood with the Brits in WW1&2 (and you with you fellas in Vietnam) we never lost our nerve, just like the Aussies, Canadians and everyone else who chipped in. I bet you would have cried like a school girl though if you had been there. Also mate, the way you talk about other nations’ soldiers, that actually gave their lives for their countries, makes me think that the whole US Marine thing is nothing more than your bullshit internet name. You clearly wish you were a tough guy but in reality I bet you are a librarian or something equally meek.

    And what’s this madness about our Muslim population? Any religion or different kind of person is welcome to do whatever they like in our country. As a free nation we are cool with anyone doing their thing (just like we are cool with licensed people owing guns – just to stay on topic : ).

    And mate, Muslims aren’t a danger to the world, the real danger is barley literate, wish-they-we-GI-Joe-but-never-will-be, Nazi Youth extremists like you. It’s actually a shame that you never have been in battle because you’d probably have done us all a favor and shot yourself in the dick (while trying fuck your gun).

  • Steelman

    Alamo,

    Though I’m sure you’ve figured it out all by yourself, Randall is nothing but a narcisistic asshole. He follows a pattern of first pontificating about the list, filled with whimsical opinion presented as fact. Then, when challenged with either contrary opinion or actual data that contradicts his opinion, he replies by calling you third-grader names.

    It’s typical liberal playbook claptrap. When you can’t back-up your point or fall prey to cognitive dissonance, call the other party names. Demean them. I’m sure Randall has read Saul Alinsky – he follows his directives.

  • Steelman

    Some have made comments about people accidently shooting themselves. Take a look at the statistics (provided graciously by the US Gov’t):

    ACCIDENT PERCENT
    (1) Motor vehicle (MVA) 37.5%
    (2) Poisoning 19.5%
    (3) Falls 16.3%
    (4) Drowning 3.0%
    (5) Fires, Burns,Smoke 2.6%
    (6) Medical/Surgical Complication 2.2%
    (7) Forces of nature 1.8%
    (8) Firearms discharge 0.7%
    Other (transport) 2.6%
    Other (nontransport) 13.9%

    Maybe we ought to eliminate all cars, since they are leading the statistics, or chemicals since they cause poisoning.

  • Steelman

    Quoted from “Guns Save Lives”:

    The surprising truth is that there is a direct connection between lawful ownership and possession of firearms and the reduction of violent crime rates. In his book More Guns, Less Crime, Professor John R. Lott, Jr. (University of Chicago Press) provides the most comprehensive and statistically reliable study of firearms and crime ever conducted, analyzing the relationship between gun ownership and FBI crime statistics for each of the 3,045 counties in America over an 18 year period.

    The study’s irrefutable conclusion: crime rates for murder, rape and robbery drop six to ten percent, and are sustained at reduced rates, when and where law-abiding adult citizens are permitted to carry concealed firearms. The reason for this is obvious: some criminals are deterred when they think that their intended victims may be armed.

    This principle is not novel. For several years, the town of Kennesaw, Georgia had an ordinance requiring every resident to keep at least one firearm in the home. As a result, the home burglary rate in Kennesaw fell by over 80%. A similar regulation was recently passed in the town of Virgin, Utah.

    Before you conclude that Georgia and Utah are populated by the misguided, consider the nation Switzerland, which actually issues military firearms and ammunition to be kept in the home. Possession of pistols and semi-automatic firearms by civilians is only modestly regulated. The resulting crime rate is surprisingly low – lower, in fact, than the crime rate in Great Britain, where gun control laws are the most restrictive in the western world.

  • Steelman

    “The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subjected people to carry arms; history shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subjected people to carry arms have prepared their own fall.”

    Adolf Hitler
    Edict of March 18, 1938

    “Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the Act depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest.”

    Mahatma Ghandi

    Maybe we Americans aren’t so backward or “misguided”.

  • GiantFlyingRobo

    @OeJay (631): Wait, are from Canada, Australia, New Zealand, or Britain?

  • OeJay

    GiantFlyingRobo, do you mean where am I from? NZ.

  • sorry_all

    @OeJay (631): Haha! US Marine a librarian! No seriously, I don’t think you can be that brainfucked by reading nazi books and watching Private Ryan.

    This man (or kid? nobody knows) is full of hatred against people he has never known: Muslims, Viets, kind people, friends… I wish he had at least one acquaintance that isn’t a gun.

    I’m proud to be a Freeman and would like everyone else to be. In the same time, I’m ashamed of having this piece of shit in America. I apologize for him. Please don’t judge America after his words. NZ, Britain, USA, we are all brothers, with guns or not.

  • Woyzeck

    @Steelman (634):
    How many school shootings is that worth?

    635:
    “Maybe we Americans aren’t so backward or “misguided”.”

    The fact that you use Gandhi to support your argument suggests otherwise. Do you know what he was saying there? He was saying that if the Indians were armed he would be advocating blood running down the gutters instead of his much-vaunted non-violence. Can you imagine what the Indians would have done to each other after the British had left had they had more guns?
    Gandhi was an asshole anyway, man.

  • Just George

    @sumutai (630):
    “Ah bugger…” Etymology of ‘bugger’: clearly anti-gay. 70% of the postings here contain anti-gay references and neither you nor anyone else has come to the defense of our dick-sucking brothers. How enlightened! How progressive! And yet 80% of the postings here are anti-gun. Anti-gun is as gay as it gets — especially when it’s some little potty-mouth gamer with a bulldog mouth and a canary ass hiding behind the internet.

    @OeJay (631): Good on you for getting your back up over US Marine’s failure to give praise where it’s due. Your 70 or so SAS contingent is deeply appreciated. Do you really think the whole country can take credit for the valor of so few? Is that NZ’s fair share? Would your SAS blokes say the nation’s behind them? That they are well-resourced? Where were you when several posters here denigrated all soldiers as “stupid” and “low class”. Where was samutai’s outrage? Let me just say that NOT ONE Kiwi spoke up.

    OeJay: Did you really write “barley literate”?

    This is a great opportunity to see what the remaining 4.3M Kiwis think of their defense budget, the military in general, and the war against islamic terrorism in specific. All I’m hearing is silence. Attack US Marine all you want. He can take it, I’m sure. How about NZ manning up in the war on terror? NZ has an infamous aversion to conflict that is evident in all the anti-gun crap spewed here. How ’bout one of you pimply faced gamers signing up tomorrow. Your continual references to male genitalia are giving you away – the old diversion of attention away from your empty nut sacks. How about just one Kiwi retracting the cannard that Soldiers are stupid and low class.

    Here’s how the overwhelming majority of posters here size up:
    Anti-gun
    Anti-gay
    Anti-military
    War/fantasy gamers
    Cranky wheel-chair bound naifs
    Faux progressives
    Kiwi wusses

    Not all Kiwis are wusses. But you can’t hide behind the SAS. I forgive my Marine friend for dividing the world into the good and the evil. Them and us. That mentality is evident in almost every posting here – for we all have our prejudices. Chafing at the word ‘wog’ while tossing around ‘nazi’, ‘redneck’, ‘KKK’ in return ain’t progressive. Just playground name calling. I suspect Marine is the real McCoy who’s been there and seen the elephant based on his other postings. The rest of you spend way too much time chatting on line…

  • Just George

    My last post here. I don’t have time for twits. I work for a living.

    I came here directed by a link to the 10 Greatest Firearms in History. Great topic! I’m interested! While the list is debateable, that’s what I like about such lists. Came to find out in skimming 639 posts that this is a Kiwi site, hosted by a New Zealander interested in firearms. He posed an intriguing set of questions ignored by most. Very few intelligent responses – but that’s the internet. I don’t engage flamers. Too sophomoric.

    The few thoughtful posters here are pro-gun and obviously US. I’ll always stop to hear what a Marine has to say. Always Faithful, friend. They are the bedrock of our Country. Have been since 1775 – when they were formed shortly after a handful of armed colonials fired on the Redcoats at Lexington and Concord. Our American gun culture if that’s what it is goes back to the first impulse of independence from the Crown.

    Somewhere along the way we patched things up with the Mother country. That was inevitable. Too much in common. Our Armed Forces derive so much of our ceremonies and tradtions from the British. None more so than our Marines. By the end of WWII, the English speaking nations of the West were profoundly allied. We still mostly are with some bumps along the way. The ANZUS alliance (now defunct at the insistence of NZ) and the ABC family of Australia, America, Britain and Canada have been bulwarks against the darkness (If you don’t like that kind of language then you were born after the Cold War).

    Unfortunately there is a dynamic at work in the US, Britain, Canada, New Zealand, and Australia that is both anti-military and anti-gun. The two sentiments are absolutely tied together. This has been going on since around the ’60s. The youthful ignorance of the posters here is obvious in that you don’t even realize that gun ownership was prevalent in your own countries just fifty years ago.

    As gun laws have tightened in your countries, the US tinkered and dithered — but is now more pro-gun than ever, thank God. But the link is there. While your gun laws become more restrictive, your support for strong Armed Forces has dwindled. That is overwhelmingly obvious from the posts here. That is particularly true of NZ – where this site is hosted.

    That’s not a good thing for the British Commonwealth nor for the West — nor for the US. God knows we need the best of your men beside us whenever and wherever we have to fight the forces of evil in the world. There is no stronger bond in the world than the one we all share.

    New Zealand is a special case because you have embraced pacifism as part of your national culture. You can debate me and Marine about it and call us names — but you know it’s true. You debate the issue among yourselves during every national budget resolution and every election. Those who desire a stronger commitment to your feeble Defense Forces lose every time. Boasting about a commitment of 70 SAS is a sad reminder of a New Zealand that once was.

    AND YOU KNOW IT – because not a day goes by when this topic is not debated throughout New Zealand.

    There is a clear connection: You gave up your guns as a nation; you’ve lost your nerve to fight as a nation. Not your SAS bad-asses. Not your under-funded cracker jack sailors and soldiers. YOU.

    There is a lesson here for Australia, Britain, Canada and the US. Give up your guns and lose your courage as a nation to fight the darkness.

    Together we defeated the great evils of the 20th Century. Britain was prepared to fight the Hun on the beaches and in the hills inasmuch as many a farm and manor house contained armed citizens. We face a greater evil now. And I’m not a racist for recognizing it. Nor is US Marine. You are fools for not recognizing it, since your populations are even more susceptible to the explosive worldwide growth of militant islam. Ask your friends in the Lord Strathcona’s Horse, or the Welsh Guard, or the Aussie Special Forces, or your Kiwi SAS. They know who the enemy is. And he lives among us.

    I’m not interested in reading your nitwit responses. The host posted a serious topic. I’ve tried to post a thoughtful reply. And I’ll repeat it: Give up your guns; lose your collective nerve. It’s a dangerous world out there. God bless the US Marines and all who stand beside them in the war against islamic terror.

  • GiantFlyingRobo

    @Woyzeck (641): lulz

  • sumutai

    @Just George (640):

    I’m not sure I’d intentionally (or otherwise) insult a whole sub-section of society by using a word which has lost it’s original meaning – now more commonly used as an expression of surprise/disappointment than an accusation/observation – , particularly when I have one foot in that camp.

    And, a quick question, is buggery the preserve of the gay community?

    I could inform you otherwise…so what does that tell me…it tells me you are either uninformed, unintelligent, or un-accustomed to to the realities of life.

    But nevermind….I’d stated I hadn’t made my mind up in this debate, (and still haven’t) I could be swayed by persuasive arguments…but my point was I can’t trust the arguments of someone with such poorly affected judgement (see post 624).

    I apologise if I’m talking down to you (seriously), but can you not see that the recent comments made by US Marine (in repose) expose an attitude of intolerance? That attitude might be useful to him for whatever reason, and it’s not for me to tell people what to think, but I’d have thought that if I were trying to convince people of the strength of my arguments, I wouldn’t disply my racist credentials openly.

  • sumutai

    @Just George (642):

    good post…I enjoyed that.

    There IS an enemy amongst us I’m not sure who 9or what) it is yet.

  • flamehorse

    Someone asked if I’m a lawyer. No, not a lawyer. Just your ordinary college student in English.

  • GiantFlyingRobo

    @flamehorse (646): Wait. Are you studying English, or actually English?

  • flamehorse

    @GiantFlyingRobo (647): Studying English. I’m North Carolinian. Redneck who loves guns.

  • US Marine (In Repose)

    @sumutai (644):
    You seem to be the expert on buggery. We’ll take your word for it. I trust that my countryman George is, as you say, “uninformed, unintelligent, AND un-accustomed to to the realities of buggery” as you surely know it.

    You do after all have one foot in that camp.

    You’ve decided to change the meaning of “bugger” in the context in which you use it. Convenient. Well, wog don’t mean nothing to me neither, chum. Not an American expression. So perhaps I mis-used it. If so I attribute that to the day my unit spent training with the Grenadier Guards in Hong Kong. The term was very popular with our Brit counterparts, not in referring to the locals but rather in regards to the Chicoms just over the frontier.

    We Americans learned everything we once knew about slavery and racism from the Brits after all – who practiced slavery from the time before the Romans. So chill out, my gay bashing friend with one foot in that camp. Self-loathing is a key symptom of homosexuality.

  • US Marine (In Repose)

    And to all other readers from Aus or NZ: How are those Aborigines and Maori faring these days? Not from your perspective. From theirs. I was in Auckland and in Sydney in 1972. Are they happy with the new multi-culti sensitivities you’ve developed since then? No fucking way! Look in the mirror you putz’s, before pointing your spindly ass-poking fingers at the US.

  • US Marine (In Repose)

    @sumutai (644):
    You keep repeating that you can’t make up your mind.

    Oh please tell us when you do.

    I can help! You sir, are a dick salesman with a mouth full of samples.

    But by all means keep up the gay bashing facade!

  • sumutai

    @US Marine (In Repose) (651):
    Oh come on!

    It should be obvious I’m not gay bashing…I’m bisexual..If you can’t discern that from my posts, then I apologise for not making myself clearer. (and trust me…it’s a difficult thing being honest with yourself)..I admit there’s an element of my existence which is tricky to come to terms with…(probably not because it should be difficult, but because I’m afraid of the judgement that’ll be handed down to me by some elements of society..this is something I alone need to deal with.)

    Regardless..getting back to the point… most of your posts have made me consider an alternative…Previously I blindly followed the No-Guns school of thought with absolutely no idea that people from the opposing side of the spectrum might have something to say that’s worth listening to! Mostly because I’m an old cnut and I thought (think?) I knew everything.

    So I’m trying to open my mind. I thought your earlier points were well made, and made me question some things that I thought were given truths, but your inflamatory post at 624 looked to me like the ranting of an angry racist.

    Would you describe yourself as such?

    If not, then either I misunderstood your post, or you misunderstood your audience. Either way, it affected the way in which I view all of your previous posts. Probably not just me either.

    I don’t know for sure, but I don’t think you had that intention.
    For fucks sake…my dad (ex-army) used to use terms such as ‘nigger in the woodpile’ etc….and now he doesn’t, not because he ever considered himself to be a racist (maybe he was?) but because he knows those kinds of phrases undermine whatever point he’s trying to make.

    Your points are good enough without having to resort to casual racism, that probably isn’t even intended to offend….but offend it does.

  • US Marine (In Repose)

    @sumutai (652):
    Peace be with you Samutai! I have a gay son who I love dearly. How could I but not. You’ve given me an honest glimpse instead of the usual pose one finds online. I won’t poke fun at your expense no more…

    You’re a good guy. I can always count on getting spun up by flamers. You’re not one.

    The term “racist” is much overused in the US right now. I chafe at the glib usage. I’ll be more careful with my posts on the matter. We Marines do tend to divide the world into good guys and bad — and that ain’t changing. I’ve never disparaged anyone who’s stood by my side. Labeling the enemy with disparaging words is a tradition as old as warfare.

    Go in peace Samutai. You’re from good stock if your Dad was a Soldier. My last post. I’m outta here.

  • cody

    amazing… so many comments… all i can say is Good list… And if you dont have a gun and dont like em… go buy one and goto a range… i dare you to not have fun.

  • flamehorse

    @cody (654): Thanks. But I think most of these comments are due to JFrater’s bonus question at the end of the list. That was his idea, and a good one.

  • roberth

    My only input on the question is the fact that most criminals get there guns illegally, as to avoid having to register them etc. Taking away all the legal guns will only disarm the average person, not the criminals.

  • GiantFlyingRobo

    @flamehorse (654): Oh, I thought that was your question.

  • David

    I`ve never understood the right to bear arms thing. When that South Korean massacred people at Viginia Tech, people said, they should have had guns, so they could have shut back. Crazy if you ask me. When Dunblane happened, we tried to stop people getting their hands on guns.And we all go on about the AK-47, but Mikhail Klasnikov, admits that he got inspiration from a German Engineer, Hugo Schmeisser, who invented the MKb4B.

  • jjbjr

    @apepper (3): The question is not whether or not you have a gun, it is if you have the means to oppose an oppresive government. And eventually, all governments become oppresive. If the government has a club and you have nothing, government wins. If they have guns and you don’t, they win. Only when government is limited by the power of it’s citizens is government under control.

  • Tragik

    Gun ownership is not a universal right. It is an American right, and we have worked long and hard to keep and maintain it. If Americans thought that the laws of England were suitable for us, we would have stuck around.

  • fulcontrol

    To all those that follow the line that the AK47 is not accurate, free your minds from US corporate military supplier propaganda. You can do this by taking a decent Ak like a Yugoslav or Istmash or Saiga with the barrel not shot out from never being cleaned (remember they work so well dirty. Put it on a bench rest with some sand bags and put some rounds through it. If you know how to shoot typically you will see a better than 3 inch group at 100 yards, better than 5 inch group at 200 yards and 12 inches at 300. At 400 you should be able hit a 26 inch archery target if you can see that far. I’m talking iron sights here no optics and surplus 123 grain ball ammo.

    This compares to M-16s and AR15s that havn’t been super customized and accurized with heavier and floating barrel and different twists and bullet weights and fancy optics.

    In off hand shooting, the Ak is a harder firearm to control and be successful with than the M-16 AR-15 because of more recoil. This is a matter of training and practice as every military person has experienced. Lucky for many veterans the crazies running arouund with AKs in Vietnam, Iraqi, and now Afganistan didn’t/don’t get the training time or the live ammo practice to be proficient. Notwithstanding we should be a bit more concerned about the Iranians and North Koreans I’ll be they can make Aks shoot straight.

    Since it’s introduction in 1947 except for a change from machined receiver to pressed steel receiver the AK is the same as it was, a finished accurate trouble free design.
    The AR15/M16, what we called the “Mattell toy” has seen numerous upgrades and engineering change. We are now up up to the M-4 or higher, differnet ammo weights, barrell twists, barrel diameters because that little bullet can’t buck the wind at distanc. Plus changes in machining tolerances and now even recoil systems are being “improved”. And of course for all this technology to work at all it must be kept spotlessly clean. So finally here’s rhetorical question. What kind of reliable firearm needs a “forward assist” just in case the bolt needs to be forced closed so the thing can fire. That sure doesn’t give the user the confidense he needs or the extra split second he might need when things go non linear.

  • Woyzeck

    If you knew Peggy Sue then you’d know why I feel blue about Peggy… my Peggy Sue. Oh I love you gal and I wish I hadn’t accidently shot you Peggy Sue.

  • OeJay

    @US Marine (In Repose) (649): @ 649 US Marine.

    “How are those Aborigines and Maori faring these days?”
    – I am Maori and I’m doing fine. Take a look at the details below to see what the Government and Iwi (Iwi = NZ Maori tribes) have agreed upon. These are in addition to a lot of state funded initiatives on strengthening Maori culture. Look up your facts, you putz, before making an absolute fool of yourself.

    “before pointing your spindly ass-poking fingers at the US”
    – I never pointed my finger at the US for its cultural dealings. Just at you in particular for being a fucken retard with your comments regarding Muslims. By the way the only ass-poking my finger does is with your mother and she tells me that she loves it.

    COMPLETED SETTLEMENTS?? (this is an overkill I know but just showing US Marine how terribly wrong he is).

    – Taranaki Whanui ki Te Upoko o Te Ika?Redress Amount $25 million ?Year of Deed: 2008?Year of Legislation: 2009?
    – Central North Island Forests Iwi Collective?Redress Amount $161 million (on account against comprehensive settlements with members of the Collective)?Year of Deed: 2008?Year of Legislation: 2008??
    – Affiliate Te Arawa Iwi and Hapu?Redress Amount $38.6 million?Year of Deed: 2006, revised 2008?Year of Legislation: 2008??
    – Te Roroa?Redress Amount $9.5 million?Year of Deed: 2005?Year of Legislation): 2008??
    – Ngati Mutunga?Redress Amount $14.9 million?Year of Deed 2005?Year of Legislation 2006??
    – Te Arawa (Lakes)?Redress Amount $2.7 million (plus $7.3 million to capitalise the annuity Te Arawa received from the Crown and address any remaining annuity issues)?Year of Deed 2004?Year of Legislation 2006??
    – Ngaa Rauru Kiitahi?Redress Amount $31 million?Year of Deed 2003?Year of Legislation 2005??
    – Tuwharetoa (Bay of Plenty)?Redress Amount $10.5 million ?Year of Deed 2003?Year of Legislation 2005??
    – Ngati Awa ?Redress Amount $42.39 million?Year of Deed 2003?Year of Legislation 2005??
    – Ngati Tama ?Redress Amount $14.5 million?Year of Deed 2001?Year of Legislation 2003??
    – Ngati Ruanui?Redress Amount $41,000,000?Year of Deed 2001?Year of Legislation 2003??
    – Te Uri o Hau?Redress Amount $15,600,000?Year of Deed 2000?Year of Legislation 2002??
    – Pouakani?Redress Amount $2,650,000?Year of Deed 1999?Year of Legislation 2000?
    – Ngati Turangitukua?Redress Amount $5,000,000?Year of Deed 1998?Year of Legislation 1999??
    – Ngai Tahu?Redress Amount $170,000,000?Year of Deed 1997?Year of Legislation 1998??
    -Te Maunga?Redress Amount $129,032?Year of Deed 1996??
    – Rotoma?Redress Amount $43,931?Year of Deed 1996??
    – Waimakuku?Redress Amount $375,000?Year of Deed 1995??
    – Waikato/Tainui raupatu?Redress Amount $170,000,000?Year of Deed 1995?Year of Legislation 1995??
    – Ngati Whakaue?Redress Amount $5,210,000?Year of Deed 1994??
    – Hauai ?Redress Amount $715,682?Year of Deed 1993??
    – Ngati Rangiteaorere?Redress Amount $760,000 ?Year of Deed 1993 ??
    – Commercial Fisheries ?Redress Amount $170,000,000?Year of Deed 1992?Year of Legislation 1992??
    -Waitomo?: The Crown transferred land at the Waitomo Caves to the claimant group, subject to a lease, and provided a loan $1,000,000.?Year of Deed 1989

    SETTLEMENTS IN PROGRESS:
    -Ng?ti Whare (share in Central North Island settlement)?
    -Tainui Taranaki ki te Tonga ($35 million)?
    -Kurahaup? Ki Te Waipounamu ($30.65 million)
    -Ng?ti Toa Rangatira ($40 million)
    -Ng?ti Makino ($6.5 million)?
    -Waitaha ($7.5 million)?
    -Ngâti Pahauwera ($20 million)?
    -Ngâti Manawa (share in Central North Island settlement)?
    -Ngâti Kahu ($14 million plus $7.5 million social revitalisation funding)?
    -Tûranganui-a-Kiwa (Ngai Tamanuhiri, Te Pou a Haokai and Rongowhakaata) ($59 million)
    -Ngatikahu ki Whangaroa (return of Stony Creek Station)?
    -Te Rarawa ($20 million)?
    -Ngâti Whâtua o Orâkei ($10 million)?
    -Te Aupouri ($12 million)
    -Te Ati Awa $34 million)?
    -Rangitaane o Manawatu ($8.5 million)

  • OeJay

    @Just George (641):

    @ 640 Just George

    I know you’ll sneak back for a look at this thread, so just for when you do:

    “US Marine’s failure to give praise”

    – I never asked for or expected US Marine’s praise. I don’t care what other countries think of us or expect any thanks. I just took exception (like a lot of other people on this site) to his ravings. Note that I made a sweeping reference in defense of the effort made by MANY allied nations, not just NZ’s.

    “Let me just say that NOT ONE Kiwi spoke up.”

    – If my reference to KiwiMatt being a dickhead was not explicit enough for you: I don’t think soldiers are stupid, just US Marine (In Repose), afterall he is an absolute moron. My brother is in the Army and I fully support him, I can also confirm that he is not white trash – far from it. I hope spelling that out a little clearer makes you feel just a little better. If you need this to be any clearer I guess I can draw you a diagram or something. You idiot.

    “Do you really think the whole country can take credit for the valor of so few…Would your SAS blokes say the nation’s behind them?”

    – Yes. I believe a significant part of nationalistic pride can be derived from the armed forces. I know that this is the case for US citizens, I’m certain British citizens do this and I can confirm that citizens from a tiny country like NZ do this.

    – One of our SAS lads, Willie Apiata, recently received a Victoria Cross for bravery in Afghanistan. The public support and celebration for this fella was tremendous. Also, each year significantly increasing numbers turn out for the WW1&2 remembrance ceremonies on ANZAC day. So yes the nation is behind our boys. Just like the citizens of most nations. Go fuck yourself.

    “what the remaining 4.3M Kiwis think of their defense budget, the military in general”

    – The recently voted-out Labour Government dismantled a lot of our our armed forces. Among other things this was something that was very unpopular with a many people in our country. Our newly elected Government has committed to increased recruitment in our armed forces and strengthening our ties with our allies. Among other things the navy has just commissioned a few new patrol ships, by way of a recent example.

    “the war against islamic terrorism in specific”

    – The only aversion we have to war is the bullshit war in Iraq. At this point I would like point out that this is also tremendously unpopular with a lot of US and British citizens who would rather it never happened. Try reading a bit of Noam Chomsky or talking to people other than that great village idiot US Marine and you might expand you mind on a few things. I have only got respect for the soldiers over there giving their lives but they should never have been sent in the first place. The government failed them in their tragedy. We have in the past and will continue to support the US when she is acting for the right reasons.

    “all the anti-gun crap spewed here… You gave up your guns as a nation; you’ve lost your nerve to fight as a nation”

    – YOU ARE FREE TO OWN A GUN IN NZ IF YOU HAVE A LICENSE. It is not that difficult to get your hands on one. True, we are not as free to tote heavy weaponry as some nations (which is a shame as I’d love a bazooka) but you really should attempt to get a clue before spouting off. I repeat, we have in the past and will continue to support wars they are for the right reasons. Just like Afghanistan, in the Pacific or East Timor.

    I have never in this thread attempted to boast about my country but have just tried to point out how ignorant you and US Marine are – as individuals not US citizens. Anyone worth their salt will defend their country when a fool such as you or US Marine starts yapping bigoted nonsense.

    I’d also like to confirm that I am not anti US, I have never met a Yank in person that I didn’t like or have something positive in common with. However I’m sure if I met you two tossers it would end up in an arse kicking for you both. You Sir are a true wanker.

  • OeJay

    To everyone else: Apologies for the lengthly posts here, I have just taken particular exception to Just George and US Marine.

  • Davy

    many guns on the list, my favorit list. guns are kool yo

  • natapillar

    guns were made to kill,be it humans or animals. i do not see anything cool or glamorous in that.
    i despise guns and the people who bear them who say they ‘need’ them. i have never,and will never shoot a gun. anyone who complains about what i have posted can kiss my British backside!

  • sumutai

    @US Marine (In Repose) (652):

    Good post.

    regards,

    Sumutai

  • GiantFlyingRobo

    @Woyzeck (661): What?

  • GiantFlyingRobo

    @natapillar (666): When you kill bad guys with it, it is definently cool. Not sure about glamorous, though. That’s kinda girly. And the only person who can be sure they won’t ever need to fire a gun had better be MacGyver. Oh, and one more thing…
    *puts on some sorta mask that covers the lips
    *bends over
    *kiss British backside
    *coughing violently
    *falls over
    WHY ME?!? Why me? Uhhhh…
    *Expires

  • natapillar

    @GiantFlyingRobo (669): wow,amusing. i think not.

    girly?? hahaha….*sarcasm with a sweet smile*

  • minisoldr

    This list sucked!!!!!!!! No M-1 Garrand, No BAR,No M-16,No Tommy gun and the US military switched from 45s to 9mms almost 20yrs ago. Come on guys!!!!!!!!!!!1

  • BrotherMan

    Glock handguns are not really made out of “plastic” per say. More like a high-resin polymer. Its almost like a form of fiberglass. Damn good pistols. I own a model 27 chambered in .40 S&W.

    Cool list.

  • saber25

    alright alright. i can make sense if you want ianz09 but go fuck your dog and make some puppies and fuck a snail Dammit

  • Devon in Canada

    Yes to Guns…and thankfully America has the 2nd Amendment!

    Here in Canada we have loads of guns too but we are quiet about that reality!

    But where was the Barreta or Uzi’s????

  • SQUID

    If I’m in the US I’d definately get some firearms, cuz there are so many potentialy dangerous emo idiots with guns around. Vicious cycle, can’t help it!

    As for the Chinese, the last paragraph is definately a propaganda! Thw writer seems to be intending to stir up some violent emotions and actions which hopefully puts China into great chaos, so that one great developing economic threat ll b gone.

    What right do you have anyway to judge others, forcing upon them your own set of culture and values? If you think tribal life is harsh and therefore should be eliminated, did you ask the opinion of the tribal people? Disguised under the facede of the justice hero, the speaker of human right, everyone knows you’re just doing it for yourself.

  • ianz09

    @saber25 (673): For the love of all things holy, why the fuck are you still talking to me?!

  • GiantFlyingRobo

    @natapillar (670): Yeah, I agree, that kinda sucked. I still think glamorous is a girly adjective, though. “Check out my new Glock, girlfriend! Isn’t it absolutely GLAMOROUS?! Doesn’t it have style? OMIGOSH, I KNOW!!! It’s FABULOUS!!!”

  • USmarine

    ok first off the ak 47 is a horrible weapon there is no such thing as an accurate fully automatic weapon it just doesn’t happen the first round may be on target but after that who knows that isn’t attatched to a tripod or some other heavy base and the story about the guy in veitnam well that sounds great but i wouldnt want a weapon that i had to stomp to rack the bolt to the rear in combat it just doesnt seem very practical there are many other great weapon systems that belong on this list for example the m16 is an incredible weapon it has been the standard rtifle for us forces since veitnam think about all of the gigantic technological leaps since then but that one remains constant because its simply the best hands down

  • Andrei

    Seems like I judget you wrong. YOU ARE FULL OF SHIT you fucking american retard. AK47 cannot be compared with any other gun. Maybe with all american guns alltogether. Winner in WWI and WWII? What do you americans know about that? The fucking russians defeated the nazys, americans did nothing. So fuck you and all other americans now I know why people hate you.

  • natapillar

    @GiantFlyingRobo (677): movies glamorize guns.

  • GiantFlyingRobo

    @Andrei (679): First off, without America’s support, Russia would have lost. Second, we won against Japan(they surrendered to us). Finally, screw you, no one was even talking to you. Ya’ foul-mouthed freak.

  • Tragik

    @ Natapillar

    Maybe its just me, but I don’t see how a person so against guns has any standing to speak about the subject of firearms.

    To everyone else, it is unrealistic to expect Americans to not see the need to have the second amendment. Historically speaking, it wasn’t that long ago that we Americans were using guns to fight for independence. Tyranny is a real threat, and the risks of gun accidents and gun crimes are the price that we are willing to pay to insure against it. Maybe the right to bear arms is not important to those who aren’t in the U.S., and I wouldn’t try to convince you otherwise since it doesn’t concern me one way or another whether you choose to arm yourselves, but my father said something ot me one time that made a lot of sense.

    “It’s better to have a gun and not need it, than it is to need a gun and not have it.”- Mike Corkery
    1956-2001

  • Mark

    @GiantFlyingRobo (681):

    “…First off, without America’s support, Russia would have lost…”

    That’s a two-way street…

    “…Second, we won against Japan(they surrendered to us)…”

    After Russia captured massive amounts of China and Korea.

  • Mark

    @Tragik (682):

    “…Maybe its just me, but I don’t see how a person so against guns has any standing to speak about the subject of firearms…”

    “…To everyone else, it is unrealistic to expect Americans to not see the need to have the second amendment…”

    Why are you so special?

    “…Tyranny is a real threat, and the risks of gun accidents and gun crimes are the price that we are willing to pay to insure against it…”

    No it’s not and even if it was, either the military supports the tyrant or it doesn’t. That decides the fate of the country, not whether some untrained civilians have weapons or not.

    “…Maybe the right to bear arms is not important to those who aren’t in the U.S…”

    Why not? Because the US is the only democracy in the world?

    “It’s better to have a gun and not need it, than it is to need a gun and not have it.”

    That is no where near as poignant as you think it is. It’s actually leaning towards militaristic, and that is almost the definition of anti-democratic :|

  • Amos Moses

    You Europeans will never understand this. The 2nd amendment is one of the most important.

    As for the death penalty, I forget who mentioned it, but what are we supposed to do with serial killers? Feed them tea and strumpets for the rest of their lives? Yes my taxes being lower is more important to me then the life of a criminal.

  • samfishers

    @684

    Democracy does not only exist in the US..
    How about:
    -Sweden
    -Canada
    -India..

    Just to name a few..

  • GTT

    @samfishers (686): I think Mark’s comment was sarcastic… As in:

    Yes, the US is the only country where guns are oh so important because it is the only democratic country in the world and its citizens must defend themselves against tyranny.

  • USmarine

    america is the best everyone else is stupid…. thats really how simple it is

  • jose

    civilians should never ever be allowed to carry handguns anywhere around the world. “no guns = less crime”.

  • Amos Moses

    Actaully thats been proven wrong. If you take guns out of the hands of the law abiding, you are only helping the criminal, who CAN and WILL get them ILLEGALLY.

  • saber25

    Goddamn 9 more comments and this list’s gonna be 700. Oops on the greatest handguns list

  • USmarine

    @jose (689): thats not true at all you can’t keep everyone from having a gun and the more guns the more scared the criminals with guns are. for example mass shootings are always in places where the ‘bad guys’ no that people are unarmed like at schools and such there’s never any shootings at gun shows because the shooter knows he won’t get very far but at school he can shoot and shoot and shoot and not worry about anyone shooting back for awhile. criminals are cowards and when you leave the public unprotected they thrive if you give the public a choice to arm themselves you make it harder on crime bc now they have to take into consideration who can fight back when they get ready to go forwarded with their plans

  • USmarine

    know*

  • Adam

    What about the StG 44? Being the worlds first assault rifle, it’s had a huge impact on the world. Not to mention that without it we wouldn’t have gotten the AK 47.

  • USmarine

    the only reason the ak 47 is famous is because it was massed produced thats it… It is a crappy gun it sucks i know i have shot many of them and they are horrible I would rather have a air soft rifle in any shootout than any of version of the ak 47 its garbage there is a reason why cheap terrorist groups use ak-47’s and thats because they are cheap and crappy so no military with access to a substantial amount of money wants ak’s

  • Dionysus

    your Colt I-dont-know-what shouldn’t be in the first ten. Especially not before AK47. US and UK lost 800.000 people in WWII, URSS lost 27.000.000. URSS defeated Germany, not US, not UK and not the allies. URSS! And they did not use the bloody colt pistol. If they would have used it probably the nazis would have laugh at them.
    Please be real.
    You’re being thick puting an american weapon as #1, before AK47. Do you have no respect at all for history?

  • pjdominic

    According to John Stossel of 20/20, gun crimes in the U.K. have doubled since the British ban on handguns. Besides I would rather live in a dangerous and free society than a safe but unfree society. Weather I own a gun or not is none of anyone’s damn business.

  • GiantFlyingRobo

    @Dionysus (696): Your arguing point for why the USSR was better than the Americans is that they died more?! That cracks me up! Plus, Russia was an Allie during WW2, moron. And nothing you say will change that.

  • GiantFlyingRobo

    @Dionysus (696): Also, even if your retarded point “that the side with the higher body count’s better” is right, you’re still wrong. 800 is bigger than 27. Unless, of course, you meant 800,000 and 27,000,000. You know, I think your just making a joke by now, what with your repeated mispelling of USSR and whatnot. If anybody’s still reading this, do you think this guy was being sarcastic?

  • kennypo65

    I am an American and a responsible gun owner. I have extensive training in their use. While not a constitutional scholar, I don’t see why some restrictions on gun ownership are so bad. People who wish to own a gun should at least be trained in their proper use and care. Guns are not toys, they are dangerous weapons. THEY ARE DESIGNED TO BE. This is just common sense, and please, no “slippery slope” arguements.
    Why is it called “common” sense when so few people actually have it?

  • couldbeserious

    I have just spent the last twenty minutes reading many of the posts to this list. Something must be wrong with me, but it has been a lot of fun. Especially when the Russians and Swedes jump in.

    The best thing about guns is the smell. The smell when you clean them, the smell when you hold them, the smell when you fire them, the smell when you look at them at Cabela’s. Big gun smell, small gun smell. Hand-held or turret mounted. I just love the smell of guns.

  • jamestheman

    man i think tht american is so gay and they should like my balls

    • Special Guest

      I like your balls but I'm not American. Is that cool?

  • Shrock

    All I have to say is that we as Americans are only free from tyranny due to our right to own fire arms… we started our country with them and if there is any confusion about what the second ammendment is about then remember what Jefferson said…”very citizen should be a soldier. This was the case with the Greeks and Romans, and must be that of every free state.”
    “Every generation needs a new revolution.”
    “No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.”
    “The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.”
    Now it really doesn’t matter what anyone outside the United States thinks as it doesn’t apply to you but this is the thinking that gave us the other rights that we all enjoy… also to all of you who think that guns= people dying I personnaly own guns and know many people who own guns and very few have used guns on people… and of those friends most used them in defence of this country but I know that I and many people I know go to bed fgeeling safer in that we aren’t sheep for the slaughter… any man should never be expect to have someone take care of him…. and the thought that someone will is completely socialist… and believe me that ther are many cases where the incident went the way of the would be victim because they were not willing to be a victim and faught back while waiting on the Law enforcement to arrive.

    • Special Guest

      "completely socialist".

      Excellent.

      I believe that is actually the most important aspect of Socialism that a man "be expect to have someon take care of him".

  • Shrock

    Also what does it matter to those of you in other countries what we Americans do does it affect you in any way… if stfu

  • Shrock

    Another point is from a Cop I know he stated that in area with concealed carry laws… I.E. where they allow people like me to get a permit the crime rate goes down as criminals do not know if the person who they are about to mug has a gun or not.

  • jaguars1989

    Personally there is nothing wrong with guns.. Anyone who complains that guns should be banned are tards. Anythiing kill’s so should we ban everything that can harm us.. In that case we should ban: Booze,Cigs,any predatory animal,cars,doctors,knives,etc…. I hope you see my point just about anything can kill you.. Hell you could walk down the road and a damn tree can fall on you.. I used to get all pissy about the government but I finally understand that we are freakin awsome..

    • Special Guest

      I think you'll probably find that carrying a knife is illegal where you are; it is in most places. If so do you particularly miss not being able to carry your precious knife? Do you feel less safe without carrying your knife? Or have you even noticed.

  • Shrock

    That is a great point… a few years age I saw statistics that showed that both cars and bodies of water cause more deaths than legally owned firearms in the United States.

  • Ed Buckby

    This is an interesting list. I haven’t read all the comments before me yet, so I’ll just answer to the list and the bonus question.

    As to the list, I agree with most of it. I have just a few entries to point out. Inclusion of the Mauser is understandable, but including the Lee-Enfield with it is somewhat confusing. I own and shoot both models and would be the last to question either’s merit, however the Mauser is much more widespread and has a larger impact on the gun world. To me, including the Lee-Enfield and NOT including the Mosin-Nagant is just as “wrong” because the Nagant is much more widespread and is most likely the strongest action of the bunch. Mechanically, the Mauser is probably the weakest of all three ALTHOUGH it is very strong.

    The inclusion of the Glock is good because it broke the door down on acceptance of handguns that aren’t all steel and conventional in design. Most would ignore that one, but it trully did change things in the gun world.

    My biggest issue is the inclusion of the .44 Magnum. In truth, it didn’t change things in the gun world that much except in the respect that it gave handgunners an exceptionally powerful round and a platform to shoot it. Other than that (and provide Hollywood a great prop :)), the round and the gun didn’t change the gun world as a whole that much. For triva, I’ll mention that per SAAMI standards, I believe the .45 Long Colt can be loaded “hotter” than the .44 Magnum, so the .44 Magnum was never “the world’s most powerful handgun”. Someone check me on that, though.

    Never thought about the Henry repeating rifle, but your logic is VERY valid. It ushured in the use of repeating firearms in a military application.

    While not very glamorous, one could probably mention the first weapons to use a sealed cartridge, the first to use rifling, and the first to use a non-black powder round.

    Just some ideas if you want to repeat this list?

    – HK MP5: It gave rebirth to the practical SMG.
    – M1 Garand: Patton called it the greatest implement of batter ever.
    – Either the Marlin .22 or the Ruger 10/22: Almost every you kid in America either shot one of these first or got most of their practice with one.

    I think it’s sometimes tough to divide “great guns” and “great gun ideas”, but you’ve hit a decent balance here.

    As for your question, it’s a really good one (I’m from the U.S., and own 5 out of your list of 10 :)). First off, our Constitution does not give the right to keep and bear arms. Our Constitution RECOGNIZES THE RIGHT GIVEN BY GOD to keep and bear arms therefore, by logic, everyone has the right to keep and bear arms. We make provisions limiting age (to an extent) and restricting them from criminals. We also make provisions for times of war.

    That being said, if one truly followed the Constitution, then yes, everyone in the world has that right. HOWEVER, before we jump into heavy debate, the right applies to individuals and not organizations. The right implies that a citizen has the right to have a personal firearm for defense, but it doesn’t give an army or an organization the right. It may sound like splitting hairs, but it’s not in application.

    For what it’s worth, the Second Amendment was not intended to give a person the right to defend themselves with a firearm against a criminal or robber. It was intended as a defense against our own government should they become oppressive. When discussing the Second Amendment here in the States, one must never lose sight of that fact. It has a huge impact on any legal argument with regards to intent of the law.

  • adi000

    @sean – I get the feeling you have never been to either Australia or the UK. If you’ve spent time in either country, you would know that they are far from “slaves”. Their nations are far from perfect… but so is yours, American.

    And, just some friendly advice…. Your nation’s huge wealth got its start using slave labor. It’s an ugly, shameful practice. You should be ashamed about throwing that word around the way you do.

  • Ed Buckby

    @adi000 (709):

    I’m not sure I can go along with our “huge wealth” being started by slaves. They were a significant part of our early agricultural production, especially in the South, but slavery would have been quickly replaced by automation as the industrial revolution propagated.

    The problem with your statement that our wealth was started by slavery is that, by the end of the civil war, one could easily argue that most wealth gained on the backs of slaves was spent during the war and in further costs due to slavery. America is still paying for it. Slavery, I’d argue, is a huge net loss to America. While a damnation of slavery is universally acceptable, claiming that slavery is and was a key to America’s success isn’t.

    By the way, if you ever get the inclination, do some research on why people didn’t want to abolish slavery in the US during that time. It’s an interesting study in what we’re taught as history students and what was really the case.

  • adi000

    @Ed Buckby (710): Thanks for pointing that out, I’ll do more research on the topic.

    Is there a reliable source online where I can start? I’d be grateful for any advice on where to start.

  • Ed Buckby

    Sure. One of the better sources for listing events to research is a book called “When In The Course of Human Events”. You can take or leave much of the opinion of the book, but the historical references are pretty good. The book is written to show why the South was justified in leaving the Union from a legal aspect. It is NOT a justification for slavery. If anything, it shows slavery had little to do with the mechanics for the conflict short of providing a facade of motivation.

    One of the major things pointed out that isn’t taught in many history classes is that shortly before the Civil War, the French had lost 10+ thousand citizens in a violent slave revolt on Hati (check me on that). This revolt influenced the Louisianna Purchase.

    At the time before the Civil War, MOST US citizens were anti-slavery but the problem was actually freeing them i.e. “okay, what do they do now?” Being a slave is awful. Being a freeman with no money, no education, no food, no place to stay, and little if any social skills is arguably worse. It’s definitely worse to the society in which that slave would enter in. Therein lies the rub. No one liked slavery, but what the heck do you do with all the slaves?

    Those are issues that normal history classes rarely teach. Think of it like this. What if a bunch of foreigners who were kept as slaves escaped and landed in the United States for refuge. We can all have a parade and celebrate their emancipation, of course, but what if they number about 75 million people? Great, they’re free, but what do we do with them? We have enough trouble with 10-15 million illegal aliens who can partially assimilate.

    That’s what a sudden emancipation of the slaves would have been like.

  • adi000

    Thanks, I’ll put that book on order in my local bookstore!

    What you said about the challenges of sudden emancipation rings true, Ed. I see a little of it in my own country. We were a colony of Spain, and no better than slaves in our own land (this lasted roughly 330 years). Even after more than 100 years of relative freedom (we were occupied by America for a bit, then Japan during the war), The echoes of slave mentality are still very much alive here. We call it Colonial Mentality, and it is one of our worst societal cancers IMO.

    I guess that’s why my emotions tend to get the better of me when someone throws the word “slave” around. I see how much being on the receiving end has harmed my people’s national psyche, and how long it has taken and will take to finally rise above it. And, quite frankly, it breaks my heart.

    Again, thank you for sharing this with me. Your country makes for very interesting study.

  • Ed Buckby

    Thank you. It’s hard in the U.S. to talk about slavery because everyone wants to get emotional immediately, and if you’re white and discussing it, if you say anything short of “we all deserve to be killed for it”, then you’re a racist.

    I think slavery is truly a terrible thing, but I don’t feel guilt for it. Also, I think that if we’re going to use slavery that ended 100+ years ago as a major influence on today’s society, we had better do ourselves the service and learn more about it than just “slavery was bad, umkay?” We need to learn more so we can understand where we are now.

    At some point in time, everyone must take some responsibility in ending that mindset, however. One can only blame the slave holders so long before it just becomes an excuse to fail.

    I think it’s safe to say that all of us had ancestors that were slaves to someone. Sometimes the yoke around our neck is being held in our own hand.

  • Kevin

    I support your choice as 1911 for number one. Most user-friendly, reliable, and accurate weapon I’ve ever fired. Glocks suck take them off the list. Put the mp5 in its place.

    “Free men don’t ask permission to bear arms.”

    “70,000,000 million gun owners in America behaved peacefully today.”

  • Ed Buckby

    The 1911 is all the things you say . . . for a weapon designed in 1911. Compared to a modern handgun (like a Glock, sorry), they show their age. They REALLY show their age as a carry gun if you carry daily.

    Saying a Glock “sucks” is fine, but you need to define “sucks”. You can’t say the Glocks are unreliable. You can’t say they’re too heavy or too big. You can’t say they’re inaccurate. You can’t say they’re unsafe. You can’t say they’re uncomfortable to shoot. You can’t say they lack power (they beat the 1911 in power i.e. they fire the 10mm round . . . and can carry 16 to boot). The Glock may “suck” to you because it’s uncomfortable in your hand, you think it’s ugly, or whatnot, but functionally, it’s one of the best out there, and has been a long time.

    Before you reply, I have over 20k rounds through my Wilson 1911A1. I love the gun. It’s all that and a bag of chips, BUT it’s nowhere nearly as easy to live with as my G27 or my G20. A Glock will live WITH you. You have to live around a 1911.

    I DO agree on the MP-5, though, as I said earlier. No way it replaces the Glock, though. It didn’t change things as much as the Glock.

  • JC

    All the ones who think that gun control works: if the guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have the guns. Criminals don’t listen to drug, rape, robbery, murder, etc. laws. So would they listen to a gun law? No. You’re only making the law-abiding citizens that are responsible enough to own a gun defenseless.

  • Mr. 2nd Amendment

    I am surprised the .44 made the list, and that the M1 Garand did not. The .44 was quickly outclassed and is mainly an object of popular culture due to Dirty Harry rather than a miraculous breakthrough of firearm technology or implications.

    The M1 Garand’s inventor, John C. Garand, had such a revolutionary design that it took over a decade to finalize it, and he had to make his own machines and tooling just to manufacture it. It was the only standard-issue semi-automatic rifle of World War II, the AK47 was influenced by it (the inventor said so himself), and the design is still used today in the M14/M21/DMR rifle family. The M1 Garand is still used in high-powered accuracy matches, only surpassed by it’s predecessor, the M14 family. General Patton said it was the greatest battle implement ever devised, and he said that in a world that had fortress bombers, jet aircraft, rocket-propelled guided terror bombs, and nuclear weapons. That’s kind of a big deal.

  • rwiiames

    All other rights guaranteed in our Constitution are individual rights, speech, press, assembly, religion, so the right to own a firearm must be also.

    As to the Chinese and others, Adolph Hitler said, “The biggest mistake we could make would be to allow the subject races to possess firearms.”

    As for gun ownership and mayhem, read John Lott’s excellent work “More Guns Less Crime”.

  • billrafferty

    I knew I shouldn’t have read the comments after this list. All of the he said/she said, guns kill/people kill, pro-2nd Amendment/anti-2nd Amendment talk makes my brain ache.

    The Colt 1911 as #1 = AWESOME. I am fortunate enough to carry a 1911 variant as my police duty weapon and wouldn’t go back to the Glock that I was issued for anything. I use that, and a Kahr K40, as my off-duty guns.

  • MJV

    Guns don’t kill people, people kill people. They are just the weapon and tool like anything else. Should we take knives away from everyone because they have the potential to kill? Everything has a good or “great” purpose it just depends if you have the wisdom to use it properly.

  • RandomQ

    Did someone at some point decide that there was enough viewership to listverse that veracity and integrity could just be tossed out and still carry the same advertisement revenue? Flamehorse’s lists completely lack credibility and are often so vague it’s like reading a kid’s wish list.

    I, also, am not a gun owner, but I can easily recognize many factual and historical errors in this list. Some have been listed already, but why the heck hasn’t it been mentioned that the picture for the .44 Magnum is a Model 36? Omitting the M1 Garand is a glaring mistake. Described by Patton as, “The Greatest Battle Implement Ever Devised”. There’s more to write about the errors in this list than the list itself.

    The fact that this list spews up mostly gun control and rights arguments has me pretty much convinced that you guys know your audience and how to rile them up. The ‘greatest’ firearms in history would consist mostly of military firearms which have nothing to do with personal rights (other than the right to live).

    Firearms have affected many areas of politics, crime, borders, rights, mechanical design, physics, etc. To define the set as ‘greatest’ is a lazy and poor excuse for what is a pathetic excuse of a list. Listverse is quickly loosing it’s credibility and entertainment value.

  • Ed Buckby

    Before you pass too much judgement, let’s look at what’s been proposed:

    The Top 10 Greatest Firearms in History

    I don’t think the problem is with integrity or anything so lofty. I think that, perhaps, the title could be more narrowed down. In all honesty, “great” is sort of vague.

    Maybe a better title could be “10 Firearms that Changed History” or “10 Designs that Changed Firearms”?

    I think we all agree with your M1-Garand comment. Just for trivia’s sake, I think it’s funny that the great American M1-Garand was designed by . . . a Canadian. Not till the M-16 would the United States have an MBR that was designed by an American. Interesting, eh?

    I think we can all agree on the .44 Magnum, too. It’s popular, but there’s nothing particularly “great” about the round or the first weapons to fire it. It just got a good spot in a movie. As far as popularity goes, yeah, everyone’s heard of it, but precious few shooters really put lots of rounds through them like they do other chamberings. To tell the truth, if you’re talking “great” rounds, the .41 Magnum is probably a better all around round, but that’s just me.

    Something you say, though, I’d like to discuss:

    ———————–
    The ‘greatest’ firearms in history would consist mostly of military firearms which have nothing to do with personal rights (other than the right to live).
    ———————–

    It depends on how you define “great”, you know? Sure, the M1-Garand would be in a “great” list because it is truly a great design AND changed history. The Glock, however, isn’t a military weapon per se, but it did change the philosophy on gun design and perception of materials.

    Most probably, the Marlin or Ruger .22 rifles should be joint listed together as “great” because of their popularity, robustness, and decades long history of training young shooters. Neither one of those rifles is particular “military” . . . unless you dig around and find some historical niche use by special forces.

    The Henry rifle wasn’t truly a military weapon, either, but it showed the military how potent a repeater could be. It also helped tamed the West although, in truth, it was the migration of women westward that truly tamed the wild country.

    The models 870 and 1100 shotguns are also “great” firearms as they’ve cemented themselves as staple hunting weapons for decades.

    We need to define “great” a little better.

    Now, my other problem with your statement is that you’re asserting that personal rights to own a firearm have nothing to do with military firearms. That’s patently untrue whether you support or disapprove of individually owned firearms (with the United States being the context).

    I’m not going to get into gun control. That’s seperate from what I want to broach. The Second Amendment was not included to recognize the right for individuals to keep a hunting rifle around in order to thwart a would be theif. The Second Amendment was included in order to provide for the citizens of the U.S. to defend themselves against a hostile government. One may simply read the works of the U.S. Founding Fathers to have this illustrated clearly. That being said, if taken in the strictest of applications, the Second Amendment only explicitly recognizes the right for individuals to own MILITARY ARMS. Hunting is not a protected right in the United States. Owning weapons that would allow for rebellion against an unruly government is. So, in the case of the Constitution of the United States, military weapons are specifically called out for recognized protection as an individual right.

    None of that is really an opinion of mine. One may simply read what the Founding Fathers wrote both publicly and privately to have it illustrated explicitly.

    By the way, it doesn’t take significant effort to ignite a gun control debate, okay? :)

  • R.wayne

    The right to bear arms is essential to all free people. In America our founding fathers gave us the ability to free ourselves from an oppressive regime. Even the United States military could stand up against the United States gun owners if we were able to organize. That is the point, in the end the power of the government is derived from the people not the power of the US military. Yes I do think that gun ownership should spread all around the world. Oppressive regimes everywhere would be toppled. Burma is a good example of this. The Burmese government is able to oppress a large population with a very small population, because the citizens are unarmed. The ability to be armed is what gave America the freedoms that we have today. Without private arms we never would have been able to stand up to the British and we would have languished as a British colony for who knows how long.

  • R.wayne

    On top of the previous post more people die in car accidents and from obesity related diseases than guns, should we ban cars and cheeseburgers as well?

  • M

    Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the Act depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest.
    Mahatma Gandhi (1869 – 1948), Gandhi, An Autobiography, page 446

    An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life.
    Robert A. Heinlein, “Beyond This Horizon”, 1942

    This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it or their revolutionary right to dismember it or overthrow it.
    Abraham Lincoln, 4 April 1861

    False is the idea of utility that sacrifices a thousand real advantages for one imaginary or trifling inconvenience; that would take fire from men because it burns, and water because one may drown in it; that has no remedy for evils except destruction. The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.
    Cesare Beccaria, as quoted by Thomas Jefferson’s Commonplace book

  • Mark

    M – That’s a nice collection of quotes from some very notable people. I agree 100% and can only add the much overused and simplistic quote of, “When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.” I carry a gun everywhere I go. I carried a gun to my wedding, my kids baptisms, my parents funerals, and every other place that most people would consider inappropriate. I do so because bad things happen to good people everywhere and anywhere. I believe that carrying a gun illegally should carry a stiff mandatory penalty and that there should be an extensive background check before getting a permit to carry a gun. “God may have created man but Sam Colt made men equal.”

  • 212

    ‘served in India (notoriously used against unarmed civilians)’, do i need to remind anybody about cluster bombs and napalm used against unarmed civilians in Vietnam.
    Slightly hypocritical coming from an American

  • Ed Buckby

    In all honesty, I doubt if there are many countries on earth who would be justified in tossing a stone at anyone’s glass house.

    Probably what Vietnam did was to give a preview in to what future wars would be i.e. a large power facing a much smaller, weaker power with the weaker power finding shelter hiding among civilian targets.

    The quandry is this: Who’s worse . . . the armed criminal who dives for cover behind a child or the police officer who shoots them both?

  • 23redleader

    I love this list!!!!!! i personally own three of these weapons and by far my favorite is my para ordenence .45 1911.

    god made all men, john browning made all men equal!

  • Ed Buckby

    23, oddly enough, Samuel Colt is given credit for that, sort of :). One of the early advertisements for Colt was “God Made All Men, but Colt Made All Men Equal”. I believe it was for the Peacemaker line of revolvers.

    John Browning was hardly a slouch, though. :)

    Of course, the modern twist goes something like “God made all men, Samuel Colt made them equal, and Gaston Glock made a few men more equal than others.” That’s pretty cute.

  • jewditzsue

    I never got why military people claim they’re fighting for our freedom (US). Our freedom was established hundreds of years ago. As far as I’m concerned, Iraq and Afghan had no effect on our freedom.

  • Mark

    @ 732 jewditzsue – Our freedom is a perishable item. If not guarded as the precious commodity it is, it will surely spoil. Right now our Armed Forces are fighting for our freedom to go up into tall buildings without the fear of being hit by a 747. I of course disagree with you about Iraq and Afghanistan not having an effect on our freedom. We have been relatively safe since 9/11/01 because our Armed Forces are there giving those would do us harm something else to think about. You don’t have to understand any of this because our military has stepped up and guaranteed that you have the freedom not to worry about it. Have a Merry Christmas courtesy of our military in Iraq, Afghanistan, and around the world.

  • Robert

    Just wanted to point out a mistake in your listing of the Glock. Not sure if anyone else has, but I only read the first 100 comments out of 730 something. You erroniously mention that the Glock pistol is available in .40sig, while there is no such round as the .40 sig. Glocks are available in both .40S&W and .357sig, however the .357sig is basically a modified .40 cal round. Other than that, great list, thank you.

  • Moko

    Guns are great ya bunch of limp dicked tree hugging lentil munching hairy legged hippies.

    Tell ya what, use sticks and we’ll invade ya. See how you do without them…

  • /k/ommando

    This list is absolutely terrible.

    Number 4 being able to flip a charging man on his back?

    .40 “sig?”

    .50 BMG going “clear through” tanks with sabot rounds?
    LOLOLOLOLOLOL

  • sage

    This list is fucking terrible.

    Sidearms considered the greatest weapons in history?

    1911 better than any rifle?

    .40 sig?

    .50 BMG the biggest shoulder fired round?

    This is what happens when you watch youtube and play CoD to get your knowledge about guns.

    Pathetic.

  • Ed Buckby

    Couple of thoughts:

    Robert (734) – Good catch! I’ll toss one back your way, too. The .357 Sig isn’t a true “child” of the .40 S&W. It’s actually closer to a 10mm. The .40 S&W case is too short to make a .357 Sig case. The 10mm is long enough, ALTHOUGH, the primer is different (bigger). Most of that is meaningless trivia, but you might be able to throw it at someone sometime. :)

    /k/ommando (736) – I agree with you on the whole flipping a charging man on his back. With regards to physics, there’s just not enough there. On the other hand, I believe a .50 BMG with AP ammo can penetrate a significant amount of armor. Normal AP rounds are about 3/4″ plate steel and the SLAP round goes almost double that. Eh, that’s not really “tank” armor, but it does a spiffy job on tanks with aluminum armor. Those are public ratings, of course.

    sage (737) – I didn’t see where the list said a 1911 is better than any rifle. That’s obviously false. Almost any quality MBR is better than the 1911. I didn’t see where the .50 BMG is called the largest shoulder fired round, either (on the list). It wouldn’t be, of course, since someone has created a “shoulder fired” 20mm. Also, I believe the anti-tank rifles of WWI had some offerings in rounds larger than .50 BMG.

    That being said, sure, there should be some sidearms in the list. If you think about it, lots of innovations came from the sidearm first due to the ease of implementing improvements on lower powered systems. Think about it like this. The M1-Garand is almost a golden calf in the gun world. I mean, it’s a jewel. It’s a VERY early semi-automatic rifle that was amazing on all fronts (save for weight, of course! lol). On the other hand, there were very reliable and robust semi-automatic handguns for decades before the Garand.

  • solaris station

    Nice list. I was impressed by the handguns. I ‘m a European myself and in my country firearms are prohibited, but we are permitted to have licensed hunting guns. In my opinion, the first value is survival. If I am permitted to survive then we can ban arms. But when I see crime at the next door and criminals invading homes and kill people then I don’t care about the law. I would choose to own a glock or a colt, if I could, and put it in a safe place for the needy time. But I don’t agree that a man is free when he bear arms. In that sense he is free when he can kill anyone he doesn’t like. We make contracts to reduce our natural freedom in order to be able to live together. But again: survival comes first…

  • Trazz

    Johnny Flame – Fantastic Four: best fire-arms ever!

  • cameron

    @Sean (147): i am not really for or against guns, as i personally feel safe here in nearly-rural Lincolnshire, but you really aren’t setting a good example for yourself or for gunowners.

  • Fred

    @loop (4): As you say
    “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”
    The issue at hand isn’t the security of the State, but a FREE State. The Second Ammendment isn’t about hunting, it’s about keeping the state(and we the people) free from tyrannny.
    And the regulation they spoke of wasn’t in terms of magazine capacity or caliber or rate of fire. But of training. The milita(able bodied men) was expected to gather and train together and in large part provide their own weapons. During the revolutionary war a great many of the artillery pieces used were privately owned, and of course captured.
    The National Guard(now often confused for militia) wasn’t conceived until the 1903 Militia Act. Well over 100 years after the BoR had been ratified.
    I do however agree with you, gun owners should be trained in the use of the arm they own. That’s not to say I support Licensing or similar, but I view it more as a moral imperative.

  • Timmaaa

    What about the Gattling gun? Which was derived from an automatic grain sowing machine designed by Gattling. Probably one of the most important firearms that has influenced weapons today. The FIRST fully automatic firearm!

  • Ed Buckby

    Timmaaa, something kind of interesting about your post. I agree with you that the Gat Gun was very influential and probably deserves some spotlight, BUT it wasn’t the first automatice firearm. Technically, it’s not an automatic firearm at all :).

    To be an (fully) automatic firearm, the weapon is required to continue to fire so long as a trigger is activated. Basically one movement will cause the weapon to continue to fire until released.

    The Gat is activated by turning a crank. The crank must be continually turned so there is no single activation causing multiple rounds to fire. Effectively what you’re doing is continually loading, firing, and unloading the barrels manually thus making the Gat a semi-automatic.

    Oddly enough, in the States, a Gat Gun is legal to own, I believe. Back in the 80’s and 90’s, lots of people sold little cranks that would go onto the triggers of .22 rifles to turn them into little Gat guns.

    Cool, eh?

  • Timmaaa

    Hey Ed, that’s a fair enough arguement, I reckon you may be right about that. A lot of people still consider it as the first auto though. Either way though I would have thought it deserved to be in the list! It’s amazing to me that any person could legally own it in the USA. We had gun reform here in Australia a few years back (Due to a mass murder of 30 or so civilians in Port Arthur with a semi-auto rifle) and now you can’t even legally own a semi-automatic firearm. Personally I don’t see the need for civilians to have automatic weapons, they’re designed to kill people, not for hunting. And really, if you want to hunt you’re better off with a high powered rifle or a shotgun anywys. Just a thought. Saying that though, I am incredibly interested in firearms and weapons in general, and the thought of a .22 with a Gattling mechanism on it is pretty darn cool :)

  • Ed Buckby

    You haev a great point about being considered an automatic weapon. It’s more semi-automatic, but it “appears” to be automatic.

    As far as legally owning one, eh, it’s hardly a particularly threatening weapon with regards to criminal activity. I mean, it’s huge and weighs a few hundred pounds. Also, it’s not particularly reliable. I mean, I’m sure a person could make a modern and lightweight (relatively) version, but it would be woefully ill suited for illegal purposes. And really, in America, that’s the point i.e. who cares what a lawful citizen has or does. :)

    I’m well aware of what happened in Australia. It’s a shame on multiple levels. In my opinion, the biggest shame isn’t the fact that the criminal could get his hands on a gun. The biggest shame is that a citizen didn’t have a weapon of their own to stop that criminal. To me, one can’t make a law or any number of laws that will control a criminal. By definition, a criminal doesn’t observe the laws’ restrictions. Only a law abiding citizen does, and who cares if a law abiding citizen is armed? :)

    I also understand what you’re saying about with regards to hunting. Our Bill of Rights recognizes our right to be armed. It doesn’t GRANT the right. It recognizes the right that naturally exists for self-protection. One of the biggest misconceptions is that the right is to protect hunting and sportsmen. It’s not.

    Another misconception is that the right exists to protect citizens from robbers and thieves. If one reads the basis for the Second Amendment, it’s there to protect the citizenry against an unjust government. In other words, our Founding Fathers wanted an armed populace to guard against a government gone wrong and not some street thug. That being said, one could easily argue that “sporting” firearms aren’t protected specifically by the Second Amendment, but, in your words, semi-automatics designed to kill people explicitly are. :)

    Our country was founded by a bunch of rebels who threw off the reigns of an unjust government (England). Those same rebels understood that, in the case of their OWN creation becoming just as tyranical, the people must be able to defend themselves. That’s why the Second Amendment is there.

    As long as there is evil in the world, I believe that a human being has the right to defend themselves from that evil by the most effective and prudent means available. That doesn’t mean that I believe we should all carry around rocket launchers as that’s hardly the most effective and prudent. On the other hand, I have no problems at all seeing a fellow citizen carrying a weapon next to me in a store or eating establishment. Odds are, I’ll be (legally) carrying my own weapon along with my wife and most of my friends.

    I’m not a gun nut, and I don’t really live in fear of armed gangs in the streets nor the “men in black” coming to take my guns. On the other hand, I understand the wisdom of our Founding Fathers and what the law of our land is intended to relay to our citizens. :)

  • Timmaaa

    You do make valid points about the right to be armed, and what he founding fathers had in mind when creating such a right. My viewpoint these days is that it’s taken out of context though, and I think you even said that somewhere in there. As for the comment about what happened here, if the murderer didn’t have a gun in the first place there would be no need for a citizen to have to defend themselves. But it kind of goes around in circles, if the murderer was of a stable mind it would never have happened either. It’s just too hard to tell these days who’s going to “snap” and end up killing a bunch of people. I’m all for people owning guns for the purposes of sport or hunting, but I don’t see the point in people owning handguns or automatic rifles. The more guns (especially concealable ones) there are around, the more likely it is people will be shot. But it’s all a matter of opinion I guess, both sides of the arguement have valid points. You have to wonder though, would the USA have as many shooting deaths if there were as many guns available?

  • Ed Buckby

    Let me offer up a scientific study on the matter. The title is, well, a little put off-ish, but let me give you an explanation.

    The author intended to write “the” scientific study on gun ownership’s relationship to crime. The author, at the time of the book’s start, was a staunch gun control advocate. In the U.S., that means he’s against the private ownership of firearms. His goal was to prove that the more guns the more the crime.

    His book ENDED UP being titled “More Guns, Less Crime”. Even though he maintains he does not “like” the personal ownership of guns, his own international study showed that the more private ownership of guns was available, the less violent crime there was.

    The study was international and not just for the United States, so it’s applicable for you and other non-U.S. people.

    As far as gun crime in the U.S., for what it’s worth, most of it is in areas where guns are restricted or out right prohibited. Some of our most violent cities are Washington DC, Detroit, and Los Angeles . . . all of which have significant restrictions on gun ownership. Basically, the criminals get them and prey on the defenseless. That’s the way criminals are.

    As far as homicides related to firearms, in 2006 the US had about 12,800 deaths from homicides (murder and justifiable homicides). We had about 300 million people at the time which is about 5 per 100,000 . . . which means 0.0005% of the deaths in the US were from homicides. Eh, that’s not that much, really, considering there are something like 20-30 million legal gun owners in the U.S., you know?

    Read that book if you’re interested. It says a lot about guns all over the world and not just the US.

    Also, for what it’s worth, handguns are the best form of self-defense for the legal owners. They’re not just used by the bad guys. :)

  • Timmaaa

    Yes I know there isn’t a direct relationship between firearm ownership and murder, for instance the number of firearms in Canada per capita is more than the USA, but far fewer murders from gunshots. I’m talking directly about the USA though, there seems to be a certain blood-thirstiness in your country, which would account for the ridiculously high murder rate. And yes handguns may be great self defence against a bad guy with a gun. But remove the gun from the picture altogether and you have no need to defend yourself with a gun. There is no need for civilians to own handguns, law enforcement officers yes, but civilians no. If a bad guy can’t just go and buy a handgun, then you have no requirement to defend yourself with one. Thus removing the problem. But we could probably go on in circles like this for all eternity and get nowhere so it’s probably best to respect each others’ opinions I think :) I’m not totally opposed to the idea of gun ownership, and like I said earlier I’m pretty fascinated by them. I just wonder sometimes what the world would be like now if they had never been invented. We’ll never know though…

    • Alan

      A quick thought.

      Criminals don't buy legal guns as a general rule.
      With the high number of circulating fire-arms on the planet today, getting a gun illegally is a simple matter.
      So removing gun purchases via law only hurts the law abiding citizen.

      Besides that. Lets say a woman is coming home late from work. the parking lot is mostly empty, she can't find her keys…fumbles in her purse. Big guy shows up and decides to rape her, no one will know, it's an empty lot. Now we've taken guns out of the picture on your suggestion. Mace can be shrugged off. I've personally been hit with civilian grade tasers and not even been knocked down. He's 6'4" 300 pounds. She's 5'3" 105.
      How is she going to stop herself from being raped?
      Wishful thinking?
      911?

      In Atlanta, the 911 police response time is between 11-17 minutes. On a good day.
      17 minutes.
      You could literally rape someone and walk away on foot, and be over a mile away, before the cops showed up.

      Guns equalize the situation. They keep people from being helpless. That's it.

  • Ed Buckby

    Eh, I don’t think it’s anything bloodthirsty per se. I think it’s more along the lines that we have lots of opportunities to advance and have things. We’re a relatively wealthy country, but most times it takes effort to succeed without taking short cuts. Some people just take short cuts. That being said, the rest of us shouldn’t have to suffer because some people take short cuts.

    Your logic sounds great i.e. if you make guns illegal, then criminals can’t get them. Say that 3 times though slowly but say it in a more general term: we’ll pass a law to keep a criminal from committing a crime. :) See the fallacy? You can’t pass a law to control criminals.

    And for what it’s worth, most bad guys don’t buy a gun . . . legally. Most of the ones used in crimes are stolen or straw purchases (illegal).

    There’s a DEFINITE need for civilians to own handguns. The police only show up AFTER the crime is done. They don’t show up before the bad guy strikes. Also, even if the bad guy DOESN’T have a gun, what does a 110 pound woman do when a 230 pound bad guy breaks down her door? Like it or not, firearms are the only way a small person or the elderly are going to be able to defend themselves . . . regardless of whether the attacker is armed or not.

    Maybe a simpler argument is this. We could probably ban guns as soon as we learn how to effectively ban . . . drugs . . . or robbery . . . or any other crime. :)

    If guns wouldn’t have been invented, we’d be using bows and arrows . . . or swords. Man has been killing each other since Adam had kids. It’s trite, but guns don’t kill people . . . people kill people.

    Fair enough, though, and I respect your opinion. It’s very idealistic, and that’s sometimes what the world needs. I’d love to move in that direction, and maybe we are, but good never triumphs unless it’s able to defend itself against evil.

  • Timmaaa

    I probably am idealistic, but I think I also speak with logic and reason. You can’t control someone from committing a crime obviously, but with gun control you can limit how easy it is to obtain a gun to commit a crime. For instance here in Australia we can’t just go and buy a Glock. Even illegal handguns are very hard o come by. Therefore we have very few (in comparison) gun related deaths. As a side note though, most illegally bought guns are stolen guns which were previously purchased legally. So, remove the availibility of the gun, and the results follow. Admittedly it might take a long time to notice the effects in the USA, due to the sheer numbers of the weapons already in the population now. Man has been killing each other forever, that’s true. I don’t agree with the “guns don’t kill people” slogan though. Guns have made it excessively easy to take a life. Life has become cheap, many people do not value a life as greatly as they should. I sound like a huge hippie now, but I’m not. I do value a life though. As for your comment about a little old lady defending herself, it’s a tough situation. Maybe a gun IS essential in that situation. But there are many, many situations where they are not needed and used anyway. Americans are very quick to pull the trigger… anyhoos I’ve waffled on about this long enough I think! Take care out there :)

  • Me

    If anyone reads deeper than just current headline news, the FBI reported a 25% increase in gun sales and ownership in the United States for 2009. The murder rate in the United States in 2009 fell by 10%.

  • Redcount

    What does it mean, “if everyone had the right”?

    Rights are abstract things. You either can or cannot do something without retaliation or consequences.

    Guns lead to anarchy. Guns are fine, so long as only one group has guns. The state has to maintain a monopoly on violence, otherwise it loses its ability to govern as it wishes. Then you have Somalia.

  • Ed Buckby

    How do you know it’s not easy to get an illegal weapon in your country? :)

    Logically, it sounds good i.e. make guns hard (illegal) to get, and you’ll have less gun violence. I don’t think that statistics reflect that, though. Logic doesn’t either i.e. only criminals will get guns, and they’re the last people you want to have them. I guess it’s all a matter of attitude and point of view. I’d much rather trust myself and my loved ones to be able to protect “us”, collectively, than to hope that the government can find the illegal guns and hope that they can get them before someone hurts us or someone we love. As Redcount so sarcastically put it (gawd, I hope it was sarcasm!), when only one side has the guns, they can maintain unquestionable control.

    I’m glad you thought a little on how a gun could defend the elderly. Extend that to any female . . . or the handicapped . . . or even an outnumbered male. The problem with criminals is that they will always try to find an advantage, and an armed person is difficult for the average criminal to find an advantage around. Few criminals want to take the chance of getting shot.

    Really, it comes down to personal responsibility. I choose to take responsibility for my own safety and the safety of those around me. The police can’t and won’t protect me and my family, and harsh language is a poor defense :).

    As for your comment about Americans being so quick to pull the trigger, I think you need to qualify that. Several MILLION gun owners won’t pull that trigger today (or probably ever). I’ve carried a gun daily for 12 or 13 years, and I’ve never shot anyone. As far as “pulling the trigger”, the best stats I could find for cops and bad guys go something like 600 people every year are killed by police (in the U.S.), and about 135 officers are killed in the line of duty. Now, not all of those are gun deaths, and some of them are accidental shootings. In the grand scheme, that’s not many people. I think that, many times, we’re all too willing to believe that Hollywood or some cop drama is reality. It rarely is.

    I agree with what you’re saying about the loss of value of human life. I think, in the venacular of guns, the inner cities are a prime example. Then again, that lifestyle is glamorized and generall chosen. If you want to make it out of the ghetto in the United States, you can.

    Of course, if you really want to see a great example of the loss of value of human life, check out the number of abortions that happen in the U.S. sometime. It makes gun deaths look insignificant.

  • Clearance

    You may be interested to learn that the US government DOES allow all Iraqis to be armed. I spent a year as an infantryman in Baghdad and official US Army policy was that every family was allowed to have one AK-47 in their home to safeguard themselves against the dangers of sectarian violence.

  • BB

    While millions of armed Americans seems to be alarming to many people from the UK, to me a populace that surrenders its firearms is at least equally insane. In America roughly 2.5 million violent crimes are halted each year with the use of a gun (some studies say more).

    I own several guns and have taught my children the principle of safe gun use for recreation, hunting and if need be self defense. I have faith in our local police force, but I live in a rural area and police take time to arrive.

    Gun control is simply people control.

  • jay

    ok the ak-47 is every where but that dose stop it from being a really good gun its on my top 10 but its lower than 2

  • trm

    #9 Glock
    There is no such ammo as the “40 Sig”. You either meant 40 S&W or 357 Sig.

  • Stallion

    I really like the selection you did.
    But from my point of view, living in an uncomfortable country regarding firearms, I prefer the stronger, most foolproof mechanism ever invented. Something utterly reliable; not prone to break or lost parts.
    The Africans hunters had been remarking, for about 100 years, that such a weapon is the hammerless double rifle with two triggers and extractors; something that function like two single rifles together coupled with a rimed, low intensity, tapered cartridge.
    Those rifles used to be extremely expensive and normally made in very heavy calibers; then the other good option is to have at hand a pair of inexpensive, single shot but very strong rifles in calibers like the 30-30 Winchester.
    I consider that the American freedom to have and bear arms is something that every human being should have unless he or she was a criminal or an idiot.
    Nowadays in many countries (like mine) the prosecution of the government against the armed citizens took us to a situation in which we had lost the ”weapons culture”, that includes the etiquette and the safety rules when anyone packs a firearm, not to mention marksmanship.
    If the government turns around now and allows free ownership of weapons, I am pretty sure that we will have an epidemic of accidental discharges with thousands of wounded and killed people.
    An armed society is something very desirable but it needs education and discipline. I consider that the first commandment for a car driver is not to hit a person or another car and for an arm bearer it is not to shot himself or any innocent person or animal.

  • Ru

    i’m amazed at how scared the american people seem to be of there government. your just terrified they will screw you over in some way if you don’t have a gun at your side to shoot the first politician you meet. I myself have enough trust in my countries legal system to leave my protection to them.
    And owning a gun isnt going to stop people like hitler, you won’t know what they are up to untill it’s to late anyway.

  • JackMF

    Firearms are not great, one of the reason the USA is fucked up is because of them.

  • Ed Buckby

    You have to remember that our country was founded by people who were persecuted by their own government. They put in intentional safeguards to protect against an overbearing government.

    If you do your research, you’ll learn that one of the first things our government did after being established was to disband the military. They were afraid of even HAVING a standing military because of how it could be abused.

    BTW, one of the first things Hitler did was . . . ban private ownership of firearms. I’m NOT saying that’s why he was so successful, but it’s something that almost all despots do. One must ask “why?”

  • zack

    first off, u culd never make a ray gun. its physicaly impossible. second if it wasnt for guns were wuld we be? if we banned guns the “bad” people who use guns wuld find ways to get them. police stop these “bad people”
    all of you who say guns are bad are WRONG. guns dont kill people, people who use guns wrong kill people

  • zack

    and jackmf! u r a fool! look at where we are. if it wasnt for guns we wuld either be under british control or we would be confederate! if we were confederate we wuld still have slaves!!!!! ur an idiot!!!!!!!

  • Ed Buckby

    Zack, actually, no, we probably wouldn’t have. The industrial revolution was quickly ending slavery by making slavery commercially unviable. By the time the war started, most of the slaves weren’t even in cotton but, instead, rice.

    One of the main reasons slavery wasn’t abolished is that it would have released a staggering number of people into the nation who didn’t read, write, and sometimes, speak the language. They also had NOTHING, so, what’s better? Slavery or poverty in a strange land?

    Also the French slavery revolt was very fresh in people’s mind at the time. Over 20,000 French colonists were killed and then several thousand French soldiers. People looked around in the United States and wondered what would happen THERE if the slaves suddenly were freed.

    It’s not a defense or even justification of slavery. The best analogy is that let’s say you’re into animal protection, and you’ve recovered 20 wild lions. What do you do with them? Let them go in your neighborhood? That’s kinda’ how they felt.

  • Dentrassi

    The right to bear arms,
    to a brit like myself this does indeed seem like a ridiculous idea and i find the almost seige mentality of some of the american comments very interesting, i wonder if its a trait passed down by forebares who knew they were in possession of stolen property and expected to have to defend it? The fact of the matter is that violent crime is rare in most areas of western society. The media does a wonderful job at hyping stories to titilate and scare us. However, in countries like sudan, rwanda, burundi etc. guns make the wholesale slaughter of innocent people very easy. None of these weapons were manufactured in these countries but have been sold to them by arms dealers and the trail leads to countries like mine and the US, France, Russia and China. These weapons have of course been sold at a profit, which means we profit from the wholesale slaughter of innocent people, which leaves a bad taste in my mouth. America being the biggest producer of weapons (as you guys seem to love shooting each other so much) is also the biggest benificiary of said blood money and this stems from the right to bear arms so come guys you’ve amended the feck out of your constitution already one more wont hurt.

    Here’s a raidcal notion, why don’t we pass a UN resolution making the manufacture of all arms illeagal, if nobody was making any bullets all those weapons would soon become intersting paper weights.

    Finally Iraq wasn’t invaded due to a lack of guns more a lack of WMD’s

  • Ed Buckby

    **
    i wonder if its a trait passed down by forebares who knew they were in possession of stolen property and expected to have to defend it?
    **

    Kinda’ like the British in India, South Africa, and . . . :)

    **
    The fact of the matter is that violent crime is rare in most areas of western society. The media does a wonderful job at hyping stories to titilate and scare us. However, in countries like sudan, rwanda, burundi etc. guns make the wholesale slaughter of innocent people very easy. None of these weapons were manufactured in these countries but have been sold to them by arms dealers and the trail leads to countries like mine and the US, France, Russia and China.
    **

    That’s a great observation, really.

    **
    These weapons have of course been sold at a profit, which means we profit from the wholesale slaughter of innocent people, which leaves a bad taste in my mouth. America being the biggest producer of weapons (as you guys seem to love shooting each other so much) is also the biggest benificiary of said blood money and this stems from the right to bear arms so come guys you’ve amended the feck out of your constitution already one more wont hurt.
    **

    Actually, you’re a bit wrong there. As far as small arms go i.e. the weapons used in the conflicts in which you list, America DOES NOT profit more than anyone else. Neither do the Brits or almost any Western European country. Those are small arms wars, and non of “us” produce inexpensive small arms. Russia, China, and South America make inexpensive small arms. Eastern European countries do, as well, but not nearly as much from what I understand.

    While some U.S. weapons might trickle down there, the vast majority of the weapons witnessed are AK family as well as RPG’s neither of which is made in the US per se. While we assemble some AK varieties in the US, most if not all are semi-automatic and drastically expensive compared to a fully automatic version available locally at those conflict zones.

    As far as America being a great producer of non-military designated arms, I’d beg to differ with you. I have a decent selection of weapons that I shoot for targets and what not. I carry a weapon for defense. I don’t hunt, however. This is a cross-section of what I have . . . and the country of origin:

    Handguns: 7 from Austria (2), Italy (1), Brazil (1), China (1), Brit/US (1), US (1)
    Rifles: 12 from Russia (3), Germany (2), Brit (1), Brazil (1), Russia (1), US (4)

    Out of 19 weapons I own, 5 are made in the US. NONE of my personal defense weapons are made in the US.

    The last time I was in Europe, they rebuffed owning of weapons, and I returned “well, if you Europeans would quit making such fine hardware, I’d quit buying it.” They were forced to laugh . . . and show a little pride.

    **
    Here’s a raidcal notion, why don’t we pass a UN resolution making the manufacture of all arms illeagal, if nobody was making any bullets all those weapons would soon become intersting paper weights.
    **

    Hmmm, who would enforce it? By what legal means do you give the UN power over individual country’s sovereignty. I know I don’t want the UN to dictate above my country’s Constitution. I doubt seriously if the Brits would agree to that, as well . . . as a people. Look at who’s in the UN and see who and what they represent. I don’t want them telling me what I can and can’t do. I DEFINITELY don’t want them telling me that I have no right to defend myself against people who chose NOT to follow the rules.

    The most logical presentation on the individual ownership of arms is this. Does ANYONE care if a lawful citizen is armed? I don’t. Why should anyone care what a lawful citizen does or owns? They are a LAWFUL citizen. What we don’t want is a criminal to own a weapon. We can all agree on that. However, does anyone find it ironic that the two most popular methods of keeping a criminal from becoming armed is to a) use laws to control criminals (patently illogica) and b) to restrict the LAWFUL citizens. Both methods are illogical.

    Finally Iraq wasn’t invaded due to a lack of guns more a lack of WMD’s

  • Dentrassi

    You are quite right Ed Buckby our governments rarely go in directly for the small score, they are quite happy with kick backs from the smaller arenas. They mainly concern themselves with selling the big hardware, usually last seasons fashions, to various nations(quite often nations who can’t afford such hardware), dictators and despots. It is only recently, in the last 30 years, that my government has started to discrinate about who it sell guns to and it still has no regard as to where these weapons will eventually end up and all countries who sell guns have a similar attitude; you either sell guns or you don’t. So don’t try to wriggle out of the moral diliema of a society profiting out of selling weapons.

    My comment about a un resolution was flipant and compleatly idealistic and not to be taken seriously.

    And yes britian did claim to own three quarters of the worlds land at one time and commited terrible atrocities all over the globe, made africa the mess it is today and i’m sure that during that time the invaders felt high anxiety and drew great comfort from a warm gun. I just find it interesting that the two colonies that managed to rid itself of 99% of the indiginous peoples rather than intergating with them are both very fond of owning guns.

    My Ed I see you do own a LOT of guns wow, 19. That seems a little obsessive but then I guess my wine collection might look that way to someone else. But acctually I do mind “lawful citizens” (or subjects in my case) owning guns, in rural areas in can see a need for a shotgun or a rifle or even both, but in cities guns have no place. By owning a gun especially a hand gun in a city you are making a statement of intent, you are saying I am prepeared to use leathal force, with a caveat that it will only be in self defence, in the case of the “lawful citizen/subject” but what if you momentarily lose control and that caveat is suspended, what if you’re a jelous guy who comes home to find his wife in bed with somebody else, what if you carry a gun in your car because you’re afraid of being car jacked and you get road rage. My mother a sweet old lady turns into a bitch from hell behind the wheel if somebody cuts her up. A good friend of mines father was a psychiartrist and a patient came in one day shot him then himself, this man was a “lawful citizen” (it happened in switzerland). In britian most criminals with guns tend not to acctually use them against none criminals they are mearly to ensure capitulation. You are right though over legistlation is in danger of making us all criminals in one regard or another so the only answer really is to get rid of all the guns, but as the crinimals wouldn’t give there guns up just ban the bullets instead. I wonder if your government banned firearms would hand yours in? Or would you become a criminal, I know that if mine banned wine I would most certainly be living outside of the law

  • Ed Buckby

    **
    So don’t try to wriggle out of the moral diliema of a society profiting out of selling weapons.
    **

    Don’t believe I did. You just misrepresented the facts, and I think keeping the facts on the table. For this discussion, I think you need to.

    **
    My comment about a un resolution was flipant and compleatly idealistic and not to be taken seriously.
    **

    Fair enough. One of the terrible things about the internet is that there is no inflection. :)

    **
    made africa the mess it is today
    **

    Eh, no, most likely not. Much of Africa that British rule never touched is a mess. Honestly, I think you discredit your nation somewhat here.

    **
    I just find it interesting that the two colonies that managed to rid itself of 99% of the indiginous peoples rather than intergating with them are both very fond of owning guns.
    **

    Most likely because the two colonies that rid themselves of British rule realized that an oppressive government is a bigger danger than a foreign invader?

    BTW, which other colony are you referring to?

    **
    My Ed I see you do own a LOT of guns wow, 19. That seems a little obsessive but then I guess my wine collection might look that way to someone else.
    **

    I have firearms a I train with, train others with, target shoot, “fun” shoot, and carry for defense. Guns are a tool, to me. One tool is rarely enough.

    BTW, no wine collection is obsessive. I prefer the German wines, myself. :)

    **
    By owning a gun especially a hand gun in a city you are making a statement of intent, you are saying I am prepeared to use leathal force, with a caveat that it will only be in self defence
    **

    Agreed

    **
    what if . . .
    **

    I’ve carried a gun for 15+ years daily. I’ve drawn it once when approached by some “youths” in a parking lot. That was that. They looked for more opportune targets.

    Millions of gun owners in the U.S. yesterday . . . didn’t shoot anyone. Millions haven’t yet and never will.

    I’ll put it to you this way. I’ll trade those rage moments for the many MANY more moments when some citizen (not subject) with a firearm protects themselves. While this is rarely officially reported, it happens more than you think.

    I’ll trust average people not to “rage” more than I trust criminals NOT to vicitmize the public.

    **
    In britian most criminals with guns tend not to acctually use them against none criminals they are mearly to ensure capitulation.
    **

    Right, people unarmed are helpless. What you’re saying is that it’s better to capitulate to criminals than to fight them? Eh, that’s not an American ideal. We tend to fight injustice whenever we can (generally).

    **
    You are right though over legistlation is in danger of making us all criminals in one regard or another so the only answer really is to get rid of all the guns, but as the crinimals wouldn’t give there guns up just ban the bullets instead.
    **

    Eh, you can’t ban bullets. We can’t even ban drugs effectively. We tried to ban alcohol in the 20’s, and it was the giant growth of organized crime. When has banning something that people want EVER effective.

    Here’s perhaps a better argument against that, though. A criminal puts a gun in your face and demands money. Does he get them money or an argument about how you KNOW his gun isn’t loaded because bullets are illegal?

    Criminals use TOY guns to rob people. Banning bullets only keeps them away from lawful citizens.

    **
    I wonder if your government banned firearms would hand yours in?
    **

    Let me solve that for you. No. Absolutely not. It’s against our Constitution and that would be an illegal act for our government to try to enforce. We, the CITIZENS (not subjects) would be compelled to correct their actions by thos methods prescribed by our Founding Fathers.

    **
    Or would you become a criminal,
    **

    I wouldn’t become a criminal because our Constitution would make the government the criminals. Our Constitution to our country is a lot like a Bible is to a Christian. The further you get away from it, the worse life gets. Also, no matter what a preacher says, if the Bible doesn’t agree, he’s wrong.

    We wouldn’t be criminals. The government would be, and THEY would be subject to justice.

    **
    I know that if mine banned wine I would most certainly be living outside of the law
    **

    Then we understand each other very well. :) They banned wine here once. It worked out poorly. Guns would be FAR worse. :)

    A wise man once told me this. “In a fight between people with guns and people without guns, the wise man sides with the armed people.” :)

  • Dentrassi

    I do apologise for misrepresenting or rather over simplifing the facts as i see it. I agree that although the purses of most governments are not filled directly by the sales of small arms to conflict areas they are more than happy to allow third parties which on occasion have represented their interests to do the peddling.
    The United States ranks top among the world’s arms exporters and in developing countries, a majority of its arms are sold to regimes defined as undemocratic by the US State Department. Countries such as; Saudi Arabia ($1.1 billion in 2003), Egypt ($1.0 billion), Kuwait ($153 million), United Arab Emirates ($110 million) and Uzbekistan ($33 million).
    U.S. programs, such as FMF, are supplying arms to 18 of 25 countries embroiled in “active conflicts” or warfare against domestic or foreign foes. These include Angola, Chad, Colombia, Ethiopia, Israel, Pakistan and the Philippines.
    Now it strikes me that there is a huge conflict of interest between the US’s role as global peace keeper and global arms dealer.

    Trust me Ed even the african countries which tasted not the rotten fruit of colonial misrule have suffered to some degree or another from the british. Post empire we (meaning the british) and you (meaning the americans) and others (meaning others) have loved to destablize area’s in the name of capitilism, this is still happening even now. Only a few years ago there was a failed coup in Equatorial Guinea with a very strong british connection.

    The other genocidal, gun toting ex-colony to which i refered is of course australia and I’m more of a burgundy man myself but do enjoy a good riesling from time to time so know where you’re coming from.

    I know that banning bullets is impossible and that we’re stuck with guns, there’s no turning back the clock, that was wishful thinking on my part and I don’t think that anybody should capitulate to an unjust aggressor, criminal or lawful, I was trying to illustrate that life is not as black and white as lawful/crinimal and the grey domaine that most of us tred our path through will put us into contact with many dangers, which would i believe be lessened by the tight regulation of guns, but I suppose I would have to concede that I would not have objections to the automaton ideal of the lawful citizen from owning a gun. I just don’t believe that that ideal exists.
    Cities should be centers of learning, culture and trade a place where minds meet and boundaries are challanged. I believe that guns subtract from this and are counter evolutionary.

    I see that you yanks put great store in the second amendment being put in place, in part to secure a non-oppressive government, I don’t quite see how this is supposed to work. For starters i bet that there is a significant proportion of your country that currently feels oppressed and can’t do anything about it, but lets say that some dictator takes office, now if they’re backed by your $600,000,000,000 a year military I can’t see the effective resistance, even if you are packing european you’d still be up against…well i’m sure you know alot better than me what you’d be up against and if the hypothetical dictator isn’t supported by the worlds most expensive military he’d fail and thats the same in my country. We trust in the human safegaurd which, we hope,prevents the soldier from following inhumane orders, at least on home soil if not on foriegn.

    Now Ed, my question about handing in your guns was a hypothetical one, so just pretend that some sequence of events has led to an amendment of the amendment and the private ownership of guns has been outlawed and each citizen was required by law to hand in all firearms or be considered a criminal. Now do you comply or would they have to pry your guns from your cold dead hands?
    The truth is you don’t know what a firearms ban would do for your country and i am sure that you’re very glad that you will almost certainly never know, too many people make far too much money for that to ever happen.

    Has your wise man ever heard of Ghandi? Personally i’d always bet against the side with the least invested

  • Ed Buckby

    **
    Countries such as; Saudi Arabia ($1.1 billion in 2003), Egypt ($1.0 billion), Kuwait ($153 million), United Arab Emirates ($110 million) and Uzbekistan ($33 million).
    **

    Politically, those nations are considered allies.

    **
    U.S. programs, such as FMF, are supplying arms to 18 of 25 countries embroiled in “active conflicts” or warfare against domestic or foreign foes. These include Angola, Chad, Colombia, Ethiopia, Israel, Pakistan and the Philippines.
    **

    Okay, so what you’d want is for the U.S. to NOT sell to their allies while other nations sell to our allies’ enemies?

    **
    Now it strikes me that there is a huge conflict of interest between the US’s role as global peace keeper and global arms dealer.
    **

    You can’t keep peace with a kind word and a whimper. We have several thousand years of history that bear that out.

    **
    Trust me Ed even the african countries which tasted not the rotten fruit of colonial misrule have suffered to some degree or another from the british. Post empire we (meaning the british) and you (meaning the americans) and others (meaning others) have loved to destablize area’s in the name of capitilism, this is still happening even now. Only a few years ago there was a failed coup in Equatorial Guinea with a very strong british connection.
    **

    Eventually a land must take responsibility for their own future. Mexico wasn’t “ruined” by anyone, and yet they struggle even now. And they have plenty of natural resources and are very close to markets. Yet, they struggle.

    **
    The other genocidal, gun toting ex-colony to which i refered is of course australia and I’m more of a burgundy man myself but do enjoy a good riesling from time to time so know where you’re coming from.
    **

    Australia has banned most personal ownership of firearms save for hunting clubes.

    And my wife likes the reds, but I love Riesling :). I also enjoy Japanese plum wine from time to time.

    **
    Cities should be centers of learning, culture and trade a place where minds meet and boundaries are challanged. I believe that guns subtract from this and are counter evolutionary.
    **

    I like the thought of that, really. I mean, I truly do. The problem that I see in America is that cities have turned into centers where people can more easily live off of public assistance and/or feed off of each other.

    **
    I don’t quite see how this is supposed to work.
    **

    Eh, it’s simple, really. First, it would be very difficult for a despot to take power as they would have to suspend the Constitution. Odds are, if that were ever to come to fruition, enough of the American people would probably have taken violent action to preclude that.

    As far as the military goes, they are not obligated to take non-Constitutional actions, so they could “legally” refuse.

    Another thing that is different in America that much of the world is that our military (federal military) is not Constitutionally able to take action against the American people except in an act of open rebellion . . . which would be tough to determine IF the government was acting against the Constitution.

    Really, it’s hair splitting because the States have their own military and military bases that would be obligated to come into action against a non-Constitutional government.

    To make a long story short, the President can’t just order the Army to “attack America”. Without civillian infrastructure, the military couldn’t act for long, anyway.

    **
    backed by your $600,000,000,000 a year military
    **

    Again, you’re assuming they’d attack their own people which is against the oath they took. If their own leadership told them to perform an unConstitutional act, they’d be obligated by military justice to take action against their leadership.

    **
    We trust in the human safegaurd which, we hope,prevents the soldier from following inhumane orders, at least on home soil if not on foriegn.
    **

    And that’s a safeguard I feel good with. And, as awful as this sounds, who would want to be a dictator in a country where probably 5 million civillians are capable of putting a bullet in you from several hundred yards? Not me . . .

    **
    Now do you comply or would they have to pry your guns from your cold dead hands?
    **

    Odds are, I’d either already be dead, I’d be in the new country the rest of the U.S. would create, or I’d move to France . . . where private ownership is still legal. LOL!

    On a serious note, honestly, that’s a hard situation to judge because it would be so outlandish to get there. I mean, during hurricane Katrina, the police went around confiscating weapons to protect people, and the backlash was national. It caused states to pass laws precluding ANYONE from confiscating weapons.

    America, when pressed, is pretty serious about keeping weapons in private hands.

    **
    The truth is you don’t know what a firearms ban would do for your country and i am sure that you’re very glad that you will almost certainly never know, too many people make far too much money for that to ever happen.
    **

    Agreed, to a degree. I don’t think it’s a matter of money. It’s a matter of the Constitution and the American ideal that we should be able to defend ourselves from our own misdirected government if needed.

    **
    Has your wise man ever heard of Ghandi? Personally i’d always bet against the side with the least invested
    **

    Ghandi was killed.

    Being a good person is important. Being “good” doesn’t mean being weak, and it doesn’t mean you have to let evil do whatever it wills. Evil must be fought in whatever theater it appears, and while Ghandi was a brave, “good” man, evil is more than happy to kill good people that are willing to die. Evil doesn’t fear Ghandi. Evil fears the person who is angry that Ghandi is dead, and picks up a rifle to show their displeasure.

    BTW, I’m enjoying the exchange. No hard feelings, I truly hope. :)

  • Dentrassi

    I am thoroughly enjoying the discourse Ed :D

    Yes those countries are political allies, well currently anyway, however they aren’t exactly known for their easy going attitude and there are lots of crossed purposes. I mean arming isreal on one hand and eygpt and saudi on the other not to mention jordan and pakistan then throw into the mix Angola, Colombia!! and Chad!!! I mean who knows where any of this stuff’ll end up. I find it all very irresponsable and short sighted. It seems as though nothing get learned, Then take progams like FMF whereby countries like Chad and Ethiopia, which are two of the poorest nations on the planet, can get large grants by the US treasury deptment so long as that money is spent on US weapon systems. They get free arms and the US cleans up on lengthy maintenance and training costs, never mind that that country most probably doesn’t even need these weapons, which makes it even more likely that some will be syphoned off and sold to the highest bidders. Who quilifies for FMF? 90% of countries on that list either have oil deposits or support the US’s war of terror, sorry slip on the tongue i meant to say war on terror.
    You say you can’t keep the peace with a kind word and a whimper but surely arming the other side is an act of sheer lunacy.

    Yes a country does have to take responsability for its future but that can be very hard in the face of such adversity as; oil companies financing rebel militia in order to depopulate land prior to drilling, arms dealers financing coups in order to obtain a market, being left to the whim of market forces and large corperations to squeeze the prices of their export cash crops, to have most of your minerals mined and foriegn owned, to have billions of dollars in bribes chucked around to secure tax havens for foriegn companies, so none of the money reaches grass roots infrastructure level. Believe me the list goes on in fact you could do a top ten list of the biggest shaftings africa has received throughout history. Countries also need to be alowed to take responsability for their future.

    Thankfully Australia saw sense and their homicide rate has fallen as a result, in fact that leads me to this I was reading past posts and came upon this gem you posted a while back
    ****
    As far as homicides related to firearms, in 2006 the US had about 12,800 deaths from homicides (murder and justifiable homicides). We had about 300 million people at the time which is about 5 per 100,000 . . . which means 0.0005% of the deaths in the US were from homicides. Eh, that’s not that much, really, considering there are something like 20-30 million legal gun owners in the U.S., you know?
    ****
    I’m afraid that this stat is what we british like to call bollocks. If it is true that the 12,800 homicides that occured in the US in 2006 is equal to 0.0005% of deaths that occured, that would mean that 2,560,000,000 people died that year, which definately isn’t right. What it does equate to is 0.0043% of the population of america(based on a population of 300milion) was murdered in 2006 or about 1 person per 2000 registered gun owners. As opposed to the UK’s 0.0014% murder rate which suggests that you are three times more likely to be murdered in the US than the UK.
    In fact there are only 23 countries in the world(not counting war zones) that you are more likely to be murdered in than the US and funnily enough the US sells guns to some of these countries including the number one slot Colombia, so if you’re an american tourist and you get murdered there is a good chance that at least it’ll be american.

    It sounds like your wife has more sense than you do you should expand your horizons try the drier alsatian rieslings and the powerful pinot gris and the wonderfully unctious Gewurztraminers especially the italian ones. I hope at least you have explored germany in a vinilogical sense and experienced the wonderfully subtle riesling from the upper mosel from there blue and red slated soils with delicate flavours of apple blossom & slate in the case of the blaum schiefer or the fleshier slightly tropical flavours precipitated from the red. Try also the Albarinos from northern spain you might get on with them too oh and some of the decent soave from veneto try and find Pieropan fantastic.

    You may feel that modern cities these days are cess pools populated by parasites and to a large extend i would agree with you I see it happening at all levels of society from the crack addicted mugger in the street to the cocaine snorting fat cat banker in the clubs but I refuse to give up hope, it wouldn’t take a huge shift to improve things (i feel an idealistic burst coming on) to concentrate more on need than on want to see the humanity in all of us. Capitalism doesn’t work terribly well but it’s all we’ve got, socialism & communism we’re not ready for yet, humans still need greed and competition. Democracy, capitalism and the free market all go hand in hand but we need to have responsible greed and competition it can’t all be about the bottom line on a balance sheet.

    Thank you for your clarification of the US constitution but I still don’t really think that the second amendment ensures an un-oppressive goverment anymore than the human safeguard and as you pointed out the civ/mil logisical sybiosis does. As any democratic society being forced into despotism would require the backing of the military.

    Yes Ghandi was killed, he was shot.
    Whist being “good” doesn’t mean being weak being “right” doesn’t have to mean being strong either. Personally I don’t believe in good as the opposite of evil, good is the opposite of bad and people do good and bad things and someone who does a majority of good things is a good person, but perspective is definitive in this matter.

  • Ed Buckby

    **
    I am thoroughly enjoying the discourse Ed :D
    **

    Good! I got that impression. I have Brit friends, and I’m trying to inflect your posts through what I know of them. :)

    **
    I mean arming isreal on one hand and eygpt and saudi on the other not to mention jordan and pakistan then throw into the mix Angola, Colombia!! and Chad!!! I mean who knows where any of this stuff’ll end up.
    **

    Depends on what you mean by “arming”, I guess. Isreal, I have no issues with “arming” for various reasons both personal and practical. The rest, I guess you have to define “arming”. Does the U.S. send them light weapons? Most likely not because we’re not competitively priced. Do we send them medium weapons? Some. Do we send them “advanced” weapons? Agains, SOME, but the issue with “advanced” weapons is that they take lots of advanced people to operate them and keep them operational. Most countries we’d be nervous about (effectively) probably can’t keep our hardware running. Iran has a large group of very high end F-14’s the U.S. left them. They’ve had them for years. At best guess, they have ONE in flying condition, and that’s just barely able to get off the ground. They don’t have the technology to operate them or keep them serviced.

    Funny, huh? It’s easier to build an atomic bomb than it is to keep a group of F-14’s flight worthy (in a sense).

    **
    … can get large grants by the US treasury deptment so long as that money is spent on US weapon systems.

    **
    My gut feelings is that the U.S. is trying to prop up those countries. Ethiopia is endured several incursions by Islamic paramilitary groups who’ve killed people wholesale. I figure they’re trying to give Ethiopia a fighting chance against them.

    It’s ugly, but I’m not sure what you do when you have an oppositional group throwing money at their side.
    **

    They get free arms and the US cleans up on lengthy maintenance and training costs, never mind that that country most probably doesn’t even need these weapons, which makes it even more likely that some will be syphoned off and sold to the highest bidders.
    **

    Maybe. The problem is that our “arms” aren’t particularly cost effective or easy to use. As silly as this sounds, while they’re deadly in the hands of highly trained soldiers with another army of maintenance techs, they don’t do so well in the hands of people who may or may not read.

    I’m much less frightened of a terrorists getting his hands on a high end anti-tank weapon made in the U.S. than I am the same guy getting his hands on 20 or 30 RPG-7’s made 20 years ago.

    As callous as this sounds, rarely is the U.S. hardware worth the “bang for the buck”.

    **
    Who quilifies for FMF? 90% of countries on that list either have oil deposits or support the US’s war of terror, sorry slip on the tongue i meant to say war on terror.
    **

    You know, I look at it like this. Almost every country in the Middle East is either in chaos or ruled with an iron fist, and you know, that’s fine with me. If they want to live like that, fine. If they want a change, they should change. The problem is that they let a few stray rounds escape from their playground, and they killed a bunch of Americans. Then they killed a bunch of Europeans. That didn’t sit well, and they get what they get.

    I think if you study human history, it’s clear to see that given the potential of the U.S., we’ve been rather mild. What would the classic British Empire had done if terrorists would have attacked London in the 1700 or 1800’s? What if they would have had nuclear weapons?

    **
    You say you can’t keep the peace with a kind word and a whimper but surely arming the other side is an act of sheer lunacy.
    **

    Actually, arming only one side is lunacy. It’s more along the lines of massacre.

    **
    Yes a country does have to take responsability for its future but that can be very hard in the face of such adversity as: . . .
    **

    And in the U.S. farmers are struggling because foreign powers can do things more inexpensively without environmental restrictions. Jobs are moving overseas because American workers are too expensive.

    Much of those situations cut both ways.

    **
    Thankfully Australia saw sense and their homicide rate has fallen as a result, in fact that leads me to this I was reading past posts and came upon this gem you posted a while back
    **

    I should have reworded that as deaths per capita. Good catch. It was unintentional.

    **
    or about 1 person per 2000 registered gun owners. As opposed to the UK’s 0.0014% murder rate which suggests that you are three times more likely to be murdered in the US than the UK.
    **

    Ahhh, let me toss bullocks back at you (great word, btw . . . I may use that later today at work if you don’t mind? :))

    First off, you make a claim of “registered gun owners”. The US doesn’t have national gun registration or owner registration. Anyone who can legally own a firearm CAN own a firearm. As long as I don’t have a felony on my record or a domestic abuse (which is unconstitutional, btw), I can own a firearm without any government paperwork. I’m not “registered” anywhere. Neither are any of my firearms. That being said, you can’t really make a statement using “registered” owners with regards to the US. Some CITIES or counties may require it, but that’s not national. It’s not Constitutional, either. :)

    **
    In fact there are only 23 countries in the world(not counting war zones) that you are more likely to be murdered in than the US and funnily enough the US sells guns to some of these countries including the number one slot Colombia, so if you’re an american tourist and you get murdered there is a good chance that at least it’ll be american.
    **

    You know, you could very well be right on both cases. On the other hand, I’d still rather trust my safety to ME as opposed to statistics. It’s the American in me, I fully admit. I sleep well at night because I live in a good neighborhood in a nice town. I sleep better knowing my dogs bark at things outside. I sleep even better knowing that if someone kicks in my door in the middle of the night, I don’t have to cower, pray for mercy, and hope the police eventually come and scare the bad man away.

    **
    It sounds like your wife has more sense than you do . . .
    **

    You’re right on many levels. First off, she married me, which shows exquisite taste. LOL! Actually, all of her family originate from Sicily, so she enjoys the “richer” wines. Her tastes are dry enough to leave sand in your mouth, however. While I don’t eat candy, I have a sweet tooth for wine.

    I’ve studied a bit on the German wines, but not to your level. We should work a deal, though. If you can get me a few bottles of your favorite German wine, I’d be happy to provide you with some of the fine libations made in Tennessee and Kentucky?

    **
    but I refuse to give up hope,
    **

    We’re on the same page there. I pray for the world, but, as my boss often says “hope is not a method”. I pray for peace, but often times during prayer I have a weapon on my hip. I think if more people who pray for peace did the same, it would make peace much more possible.

    **
    it wouldn’t take a huge shift to improve things (i feel an idealistic burst coming on) to concentrate more on need than on want to see the humanity in all of us.
    **

    What shift would you see doing this?

    **
    Capitalism doesn’t work terribly well but it’s all we’ve got, socialism & communism we’re not ready for yet, humans still need greed and competition. Democracy, capitalism and the free market all go hand in hand but we need to have responsible greed and competition it can’t all be about the bottom line on a balance sheet.
    **

    Incredibly well put, sir. I think one of the biggest problems we have is globalization and the spread of corruption. The spread of corruption, though, TO ME, that is most dangerous isn’t in the board room but, instead, in the hands of the masses of stockholders who demand huge returns no matter the cost. I feel the greed of the population as a whole vastly outweighs and overwhelms anything Gordon Gecko ever imagined or could conceive of.

    **
    Thank you for your clarification of the US constitution but I still don’t really think that the second amendment ensures an un-oppressive goverment anymore than the human safeguard and as you pointed out the civ/mil logisical sybiosis does. As any democratic society being forced into despotism would require the backing of the military.
    **

    Agreed, but I don’t think the military would back it. Also, being the modern military that we have, it would be nearly impossible to sustain.

    And finally, as I said, how could the despot “enjoy” it as he’d be a target in a country full of hunters.

    **
    Personally I don’t believe in good as the opposite of evil, good is the opposite of bad and people do good and bad things and someone who does a majority of good things is a good person, but perspective is definitive in this matter.
    **

    As a Christian, no one is “good”. Man is totally depraved and driven by his nature. That being said, we can do good things, but we can’t truly be good on a higher level. While this has very limited real world application in our discussion, it does give you a glimpse at where I base much of my thoughts.

    I think individuals can do the right thing. I think groups of people can do many right things. I think that states can do more right than wrong and maybe countries can give people the opportunity to do the right things and reward them for it. For the most part, though, man cycles between a highly motivated time of building up to a gradual process of degredation. Sadly, I feel we’re on the degredation part, now.

    with regards to a “shift”, I’m afraid the next big shift is going to come in the guise of a mushroom shaped cloud originating from a device from North Korea or Iran. That’s going to be the next big shift.

    I think the world has lost its memory of real war. Europe probably had a better memory than the US, but I’m not sure how well it serves them. We scream murder when a few thousand Americans are killed “at home”. I wonder what the world will say when it’s a few hundred thousand? Will we demand a few pinpointed surgical strikes at leadership or will we demand “a big smoking hole” somewhere?

  • Dentrassi

    Here is a snippet from a story printed in the Guardian newspaper in 2008
    **
    The Pentagon entrusted a 22-year-old previously arrested for domestic violence and having a forged driving licence to be the main supplier of ammunition to Afghan forces at the height of the battle against the Taliban, it was reported yesterday.
    AEY, essentially a one-man operation based in an unmarked office in Miami Beach, Florida, was awarded a contract worth $300m (£150m) to supply the Afghan army and police in January last year. But as the New York Times reported in a lengthy investigation, AEY’s president, Efraim Diversoli, 22, supplied stock that was 40 years old and rotting packing material.
    The report on AEY was the latest instance of private firms securing lucrative defence contracts in Iraq and Afghanistan under the Bush administration’s policy of privatising growing aspects of the military.
    The army suspended AEY from future contracts during the course of the investigation – although it continues to fill existing orders.
    Until then, however, Diversoli appears to have had a lucrative run. He told the newspaper his firm had won contracts worth at least $200m each year since 2004. AEY also supplied weapons to US agencies, and rifles to Iraqi forces.
    In 2006, AEY was among 10 firms bidding on a contract to supply 52 kinds of ammunition for the Afghan security forces.
    AEY also purchased 9 million cartridges from a Czech citizen who had been linked to illegal arms trafficking to Congo.
    **
    If you’re interested in reading the full article visit http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/mar/28/afghanistan.usa
    **
    I hope that this highlights the sort of circumstances whereby although traditional direct governmental arms sales involve slimy men (donald rumsfeld, tony blair et al.) flying around the world convincing others to buy their countries, helicopters, war planes, battleships etc. with the pretence of honest brokerage, there is an even seedier side, that is still condoned by our elected representatives and that the reality of “arming” these countries means fulfilling all their conventional munition need.
    Somehow I doubt that the US is, out of the goodness of it’s wallet, looking out for the little guy’s. I think that it is protecting its own interests and if any of your new allies where to run out of money/oil/tatical relevence then you will drop them like a shitty stick. I woner how the US would feel if, say China was arming the bejabers out of central and south america for free?

    I see you point about US military hardware as not being the flavour of choice for your average insurgent, for the terrorist however i would be terrorfied by whatever weapns they used I mean how would you feel if somebody landmined your local park/woods or mortared the mall. You say that you are less frightened by the acquisition of a high end US antitank weapon, but that is only because it’s not going to used where you and your family live.

    ***
    The problem is that they let a few stray rounds escape from their playground, and they killed a bunch of Americans. Then they killed a bunch of Europeans. That didn’t sit well, and they get what they get.
    ***
    Not sure what you meant by this?

    Yes I suppose that if the US wanted to really go for it like the British did then they could do a lot more damage than they are currently doing, but you must that remember that 40 years of cold war curtailed any plans that the US might have had of aggressive expansion that combined with the size and resource diversity of your country makes the idea of a british style empire unnecessary.
    For your information London has been attacked by terrorists as early as 1867 due to its oppressive rule over ireland, a subject which you americans should know more about seeing as how a large proportion of money raised for the IRA came from the USA. Britians responses were of course ruthless and a vicious cycle emerged claiming thousands of lives over decades of violence. Nothing is ever learned.

    I think you misunderstood me when I said that arming both sides is an act of lunacy, the way you took it it is an act of profiteering, what I meant, is that the US’s irresponsably aggressive policy on arms trading makes it likely that there is a direct link between your government and many of the bullets that are fired at US soldiers.

    **

    And in the U.S. farmers are struggling because foreign powers can do things more inexpensively without environmental restrictions. Jobs are moving overseas because American workers are too expensive.

    Much of those situations cut both ways.

    **
    Boohoo, my heart bleeds, no really it does…well alright then I am being sarcastic. Don’t try to compare the pathetic largely self made problems that affect your average american to those of your average african, trust me down that road danger lies.

    **
    or about 1 person per 2000 registered gun owners. As opposed to the UK’s 0.0014% murder rate which suggests that you are three times more likely to be murdered in the US than the UK.
    **

    Ahhh, let me toss bullocks back at you (great word, btw . . . I may use that later today at work if you don’t mind? )
    **
    Please do, but remember that it is BOLLOCKS not bullocks and try to pop out the first BOL sound. It can be used instead of words like; damn, balls, shit, crap, rubbish or as a semi-mild expletive. I think it would go down well at the ball park. However you may not toss bollocks back at me (not really the right way to use it but we’ll work on that) as in my statement re. homicides per gun owner I was using your figures i mearly misworded the paragraph, if you substitute the word “legal” for “registered” you should be happy with the statement.

    Wow Ed your braver than I thought, I was considering calling you dirty Ed after you told me about the parking lot incident, but you married a sicilian that warrents a name worthy of a hero, I’m now thinking Bronson or Norris, I’ll give it some consideration though I am favouring Bronson at the moment. My favorite german wines are the eiswin’s and trokenbeerenaulese, these are the really really sweet ones but quite rare so we’ll have to see, I’ll tell you what if your country behaves itself this year; doesn’t invade anymore countries and keeps civilian deaths in afganistan to say less than about a hundred then I shall send you a bottle for christmas. But I wouldn’t get my hopes up if I were you as they do depend upon the US military.

    **

    We’re on the same page there. I pray for the world, but, as my boss often says “hope is not a method”. I pray for peace, but often times during prayer I have a weapon on my hip. I think if more people who pray for peace did the same, it would make peace much more possible.

    **
    Ouch Bronson, this could have been said 800 years ago by a templar knight, this is what I mean about guns being counter evolutionary and I’m afraid I hold similar thoughts about religion. Although I share many views held by a lot if not all religions, I think the the probabity of a divine power or powers existing as about the same as the probability of the tooth fairy existing. I’d rate the chances of Nessy the lochness monster having a fat juicy salmon for dinner tonight as higher than that of Yahweh, Allah, Vishnu..etc. doing whatever it is that they do on an evening.
    I just think that people should get their priorities in order and concentrate a little more on what they need instead of what they want. We need to try to curtail selfishness a little and these things need to filter down from the top.

    The point I was trying make in regards the second amendment safeguarding a non oppsressive domestic regieme is that I doubt that it really does so anymore, owning a gun is one thing but putting your life on the line another, easy to say but very hard to constructively do. I feel that any well established capitalist democracy stands about the same chance of negative reconstuctive legislative empowerment as another regardless of its gun laws. You guys are just as likely to shoot the good presidents as the bad.

    I agree that america on 9/11 finally experiencing the backlash of foriegn terrorism on home soil over reacted with true american exuberance, it was unlucky that you had a president like Bush at that time. I don’t however agree that countries like North Korea or Iran are more likely to use there WMD’s than other countries who possess them, after all the US is the only country to ever to have created big mushroom clouds over populated areas to date. As I said before it was precisely Iraq’s lack of WMD’s that led to it’s invasion, if Saddam had had a couple of nukes he’d still be there today. Whilst if it were up to me I’d rid the world of all weapons nuclear or otherwise, however in the current climate you can hardly blame countries who hold differing opinions from the US from wanting to ensure that they don’t suffer a similar fate as Iraq by seeking to acquire WMD’s

    Individuals do good and bad things as individuals and have a positve or negative effect on society at an individual level, when in groups that effect is multiplied so it is vital that the individual within a group recognise the importance of their actions and take responsability for the consequences of their actions regardles of the motivation of the group. If the US showed the same gusto to the repairing and restructuring of Iraq as they did to the destruction and rape of it then I feel that they would’ve had a slightly easier time there.

  • mattman624

    I like guns, I hope to get a hand gun soon.
    “Laws that forbid the carrying of arms . . . disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes . . . Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.”
    –Thomas Jefferson, quoting Cesare Beccaria in On Crimes and Punishment (1764).

  • lynn1212

    how can you ignore the maxim machine gun. first of a long line of MGs? the .44 mag pistol may be a wonderful gun but top 10, no way. love comments from idiots that have never handled a gun. ditto for those that just parrot PC ideas without spending a second thinking it over.

  • Lord Byron

    @Borat [6]: m4 is hardly worthy of ever being counted as one of the ten greatest firearms ever. It has major jamming problems first off, especially in desert climates, and its not like it was innovative in anyway. It’s a modified M-15 firing system for CQB scenarios where an m16 would prove ineffective. Army is looking to replace it as within the the next 5-10 years with either the SCAR-L or Remington ACR.

  • Smert

    @loop [4]:

    Regulated, is/was used in terms of disciplened use of arms…volunteers who were drilled in the use of arms.

    A well regulated militia is necessary for protection….but isn’t “required” as many interpret the law.

    If you have a gun in your house for protection, training would be a good thing, but not required. You have a right to protect yourself.

    The addition of the article in the Constitution evolved out of a ruse by the Brits. Gates? told the citizens of Boston, who were surrounded and prohibited from leaving the city would be free to do so if they gave up their arms.

    Many citizens did and the Brits still kept them captive.

  • Interesting and fair list!
    I believe there is a fundamental right for self defense, defense of innocent people, and to a large degree defense of property. The firearm is just a tool. Unfortunately tools can be used for evil also.
    People who have had their constitutional rights limited ( convicted felons, minors, people declared legally insane, etc.) can not legally own or purchase firearms or ammunition. Bad guys wishing to do bad things are usually not very concerned about breaking the law when they break it.
    As far as the list is concerned, my opinion of the top 10 list of greatest firearms would be different. It depends on what my definition of the greatest is at the time.

  • Boberto

    WOW :D :) :| :( :C

  • D-LoSmash

    1) On the Glock Handgun post (#9), you state that they are chambered in .40 SIG which does not exist. They are, however, manufactured in .40 S&W or .357 SIG.

    2) I feel that the Colt Python in .357 should be on there instead of the Smith and Wesson Model 29 .44 Magnum Revolver. The Python has one of the smoothest triggers on a revolver ever, and locks up extremely tight.

    3) As a proud gun owner, those that suggest even stricter gun laws fail to realize that this would only make it more difficult for law-abiding gun owners to purchase firearms. They also don't realize that criminals can and still would be able to purchase firearms on the black market, leaving responsible owners unprotected.

    4) That is all.

  • Eric

    In the United States, everyone has the right to bear arms. As a non-American my question is: is this a fundamental human right which should be extended to all people in the world? Should all Iraqi’s have the right to bear arms? If all Chinese people had the right, would they be living under an oppressive regime today or would they have risen up and put it down?
    Everyone should have the Right to Bear arms…just not everyone should….people who are you know"off" mentally unstable and prone to aggression should not be allowed but other wise i have no problem as long as you have a liscense for it

  • Alan

    Under the #9 glock you noted that it was chambered for .40 sig. It should be .40 S&W (Smith and Wesson).

  • lester

    There's countries in Europe which allow full-auto assaultrifles (Can I get a Switzerland?).
    Even the Dutch with their strict gunlaws allow 5 firearms per person. They just have extreme demands on the storage and you are not allowed a lot of rounds at home, add to that psych evalutions and higher demands on shooting ability then the average policeman(twice as many hours and better scores then a fulltime cop are a requirement of keeping it) and you will see very few people apply for a permit, let alone know you can apply for one. But a fullsize ak-47 with burstfire in the home is perfectly legal.

    There's someone on this list that claimed all guns are outlawed in Australia. Not the case. Semi-auto rifles are outlawed these days, but a bolt-action rifle can still be legally yours.

    Finland recently introduced stricter regulations, and made the age to own a gun 18 instead of 16.
    Though people in the cold cold north learned to shoot a rifle much earlier.

  • BasinBictory

    Having read through some of the comments, I always find it interesting that this particular debate (civilian gun ownership) is such a polarizing topic where there’s virtually no middle ground and both sides believe in the rectitude of their position with the absolute certainty of religious fanatics.

    …and that’s just among the Americans!

    Personally, I’m somewhat ambivalent on the issue. The ones who wish that guns could be banished forever seem oblivious to the obviousness of human nature. If guns were forever destroyed as a technology, we’d soon revert to stabbing, slashing, clubbing, and beating each other to death with bare hands. The strong (I.e. Gangs and such) would easily dominate the weak. A weapon such as a gun, which doesn’t require a great deal of strength or physical dexterity to master, is a pretty neat equalizer for a weak person to be on par with a potential attacker who would normally have every physical advantage.

    For some of the pro-gun crowd, again I take the example of human nature and it’s infinite capacity for stupidity, irresponsibility, carelessness, capriciousness, and lack of impulse control. There are a great many people out there who, IMO, should be allowed to drive, vote, or create children, let alone own a gun, yet, unless you have a criminal record or have been judged insane, and are of legal age and have the cash, you can buy and own a gun in this country. No training, no certifications, no regular examination interval to insure you actually know what you’re doing when you handle firearms or are compliant with safe storage laws and the like.

  • Ed Buckby

    Basin . . . reasonable points, really, and I especially like your observation about how if guns were outlawed, it would just go back to the strong ruling.

    I think much comes down to personal responsibility, and fostering that ideal. I know there are bad people out there so I choose to prepare for it. I choose to teach my kids this ideal, as well. It goes beyond firearms, but that's a part of it.

    In a way, what I'm afraid in America is that we've made it too easy for the stupid and weak to breed excessively while the "strong" are at work to support them. People cringe when I say that, and they scream bloody murder, but it's hard to argue against. And I say that in a "colorless" way. It goes for all races.

    It's very tongue in cheek, but I like this quote: "Whites are the master race . . . they can take the worst qualities from all races and cultures, make the qualities exponentially worse, and then market it to their children as being desirable." Classic . . .

  • Gunner

    Actually Theres is no "40 Sig" You mean to say 40 Smith and Wesson, a necked down version of the 10mm Round. The "Sig" is the .357 Sig Round Designed by Sig Sauer.

  • SJH

    The 2nd amendment is an homage to the very existence of the USA. It provides that: "It is the duty of a patriot to protect his country from his government" – Thomas Paine.

    Nations formed by rebellion such as the USA would therefore have in mind the 2nd amendment as a necessity to legitimize their existence.

  • Treb

    M1 Garand?

  • Matt D

    i'm from england an i can say for a fact that if guns were legal here people would get shot all the time

  • G.S

    For those asking why the M16 didn't make the list, the reason is simple – It's a crap gun. It takes too much maintance to keep in shooting conditon and is lousy in field conditions. I would of replaced 10 with the Gattling and 9 with the MP40. Not knock the MG42 or the Glock, just don't feel that they're some of the greatest guns.

    As for the right to bear arms, it was included to give the average citizen the option to protect themselves, be it from foreign invaders or a tyrannical government. Right now if the US was to ban firearms, it would increase crime as law abidding citizens would lose their weapons and give more power to criminals. As for the rest of the world adopting the same policy, it would depend upon the people of that region. Some are more prone to violence while others would not need a gun. A gun does provice balance so that way a tiny woman can protect herself from would be assailants. Lastly, guns do not (normally) kill people, bullets fired by another person does.

    – GS

  • zauring

    wat abt sniper's … m a geeck of sniper

  • Magnumto

    And yes, I'm aware that Mumbai isn't in Europe.

  • wfrizz

    a right is a right and thats right.

  • Bob Bootz

    1) The AK is not accurate to 400 meters. Period.

    2) Guns don’t kill people. I kill people.

    3) The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. What part is it you people don’t understand? If everyone ‘went armed’ we’d have a lot less crime and very polite drivers. You retards that want to disarm everyone would fall under the category of ‘good germans’ during WWII.

    Either that or they meant to say ‘keep and arm bears’, which is quite different and possibly just as reasonable.

  • Fife

    A Mauser k98 only holds Five rounds not Eight.

  • Jms

    Interesting list, I think everyone would end up with a slightly different list.
    Just a question, the photo you are using for the AK47, I actually think it's a "type 56", which is the Chinese equivalent.

  • John

    In the United States, everyone has the right to bear arms. As a non-American my question is: is this a fundamental human right which should be extended to all people in the world? Should all Iraqi’s have the right to bear arms? If all Chinese people had the right, would they be living under an oppressive regime today or would they have risen up and put it down?

    In answer to the first part of your question, I cite Luke 22:36, which the last line says "And the one who has no sword must sell his cloak and buy one." Yes, it is a fundamental human right.

    As to toppling oppressive governments, a means to use deadly force is not the first requirement. Before one can address the issue of using deadly force, they must love right, hate wrong, see there is another way to live and desire freedom more than they fear death. Simply having a means to apply deadly force won't work unless these conditions are met.

    Some have even tried to pervert the 2nd amendment by saying it only applies to the militia. A cursory reading of the constitution establishes the militia as an arm of the government and its responsibilities to the militia. The way the 2nd amendment is written, taken in conjunction with the constitution, clearly shows that the intent was to allow individual freedom to keep and bear arms.

    Those who point to mass killings with forearms and say this is a problem with attempting to apply an over 200 year old document to today miss one important point; every mass shooting takes place at a place the cowardly gunmen know there will be no armed resistance.

  • bert

    always love reading what people have to say about gun rights/gun control – but the best quote is guns don't kill people, people kill people
    a gun is not a thinking conscious creature/item, it is a tool
    if someone wants to kill, and guns were banned or didn't exist, they would still kill, just not as easily
    if a criminal/killer/soldier didn't have a gun, they'd use a knife – no knife, use a stick – no stick, use a rock – no rock, use their hands – it's just a tool

    go look at the lists of the creative ways we have found to execute others

    • Anton

      The most important part of your argument is "not as easily". Without guns only those hellbent on murder actually goes through with the act, whilst with guns easily avaliable the act of killing becomes easier, making murderes out of those who would otherwise hesitate. With a gun you can easily unload into a mass of people, killing and hurting alot of people before someone reacts whilst without its hard to spew that kind of destrucion. And yes you may say that you could still build a bomb, but that requires time and skill to build, time for planning and an opportunity to plant and set of the bomb, combined not an easy task and a helluva lot harder than picking up a gun and unloading into the innocent.

  • blue4

    Most of the entries on this list are just exaggerated. To begin with, the glock is in fact not as reliable as mentioned, just about any other autoloading hangun can withstand barrel obstuctions and immersion in water. A berretta 92 through two abusive tours through Iraq is just as reliable. And out of 36 parts of the pistol, only five of them are plastic, which each having half their mass in steel inlays. A bigger offender is the AK47. It's claims of reliability are a byproduct of sovet propaganda..

  • Shawn

    I have a Mauser Carbine manufactured in 1915 in Erfurt, Germany. I took it shooting last Saturday and it still works as well as it did when it came off the assembly line.

  • JoshCF1

    The AK 47 and the 1911 are both fantastic choices for the top 2!

  • Name

    yea so you missed the aa12… no gun compares to this, it is a beast and is the number 1 greatest firearm to date. Give me an aa12 and some grenade rounds and Ill go up against any of those guns you got up there..

  • Sgt.mangus

    It is an illusion that banning firearms lowers violence. In the UK after firearms were banned violent crimes and home invasions rose significantly. And criminals can still get firearms illegally. In the US the vast majority of gun related offenses are done with illegally obtained firearms. I know its a cliche, but its true that if you took away civilians guns the only armed people left are the criminals. If you get the appropriate training you can safely own a firearm without putting yourself or your family in danger, and on the contrary your family is safer from a home invasion. No one is a victim until they are one. I would much rather have a gun and not need it then need a gun and not have it.

  • lester

    The 44 Mag quip was brilliant :P
    I'd like to see a gun in the hand of all people. If you were driving your car, say down the road in the fast lane doing 25mph on the freeway, and you knew the guy behind you had a loaded .44 pointed at the back of your car… Would you drive like an asshole? Better idea… You're young, and angry at the man. You decide to take revenge by holding up a market. The owner, an Iranian middle aged woman, pulls out a mpk and tells you to fuck off… Are you gonna open fire? Clearly outgunned… BETTER STILL!! You feel opressed at school for being ugly, you go to school intent on mass murder. You pull out your thompson and Mrs. Bernard pulls out a glock and tells you to take your seat…

    In a world where everyone is armed, there is less problems over time because everyone has power and no one has power. Furthermore… You'd quickly get rid of all the assholes, pricks, lazyasses, and other degenerates pretty damn quickly…

  • Zoe99

    To the bonus question :: yes, Uninhibited Firearms Rights should be extended to All humans, regardless of culture or Nationality. Peasents with rifles would have, at the very least, given The Peoples 'republic' a proverbial bloody nose every so often for the regime's constant blatant and brutal vicious actions, against all that the word and meaning of ~Republic~ really should mean.

    Also, for those of you who think guns are bad, or don't need guns, it is small and weak-minded people like you who take refuge in Socialistic Tyrannical Regimes, and allow such vile constructs to survive and thrive throughout history.

    (note: The Peoples republic of China, is in fact the testbed of what the UN wants for all its nations, past present and future, in spite of what it may say, imply, or 'officially' demonstrate.)

  • Junior

    I live in Washington DC and a firearm ban has been in effect for the last 20 years. Less than 15 years ago Washington DC was proclaimed to have the highest homicide rate (per capita) in the US. The reason being CRIMINALS CAN NOT BUY LEGAL FIREARMS. Gun bans only hurt innocent citizens by leaving them defenseless. If you don’t like guns then don’t own one but please don’t push your beliefs on me. If you don’t think there are firearms in the UK you really might wanna wake up. If you live anywhere near a country that has firearms there are people in your country that have them too, and generally those owners won’t be “The Good Guys”.

  • Sean

    Well, this was a great and insightful read,….I totally agree on all of your weapon choices, having some military training, I would not dis-agree on most of your choices, especially the Lever action Henry, although my Dad prefers the 30 30 Winchester….as he is left handed and cannot find a lot of great bolt action rifles to suit his shooting requirements, Winchester easier to find but not as accurate though, ( Hunting wild boar and kangaroos,.. as we are Australians), but I hope you have also considered the .357 Magnum, a great, original, policeman's friend for many years, if you REALLY want to stop someone at close range, not forgeting the Walther PPK, the original concealable handgun that packs a punch, Ruger 9mm, a truly GREAT handgun that was replaced by the Glock,…the SLR, one of the greatest Semi- Auto rifles in history, could even make it fully auto if you knew how, with a matchstick in the right place, …. and an Australian still holds the OPEN sight KILL record at 1000 thousands yards with this rifle, ( Vietnam )….a bit like the M14,..but made in Sweden and much more reliable and rugged than the American breed….( The M14 a lot better than the M16 though in my opinion)

  • Name

    To ALL the people who wish to share their comments on the " right to bear arms" case,….just you remember where we ALL came from.

    Even though it is the 21st Century, it is not an excuse to forget our our history….
    people come, invade our homes, our lands, do terrible things to us, to our families, wives, children and we have done the same to other countries!!!!,so,……even though I know about guns and weapons,…I don't endorse these actions,…I consider it part of education, at least I know about what they can do, and what the other person has…

    Besides, really, what right does ANYONE have, to judge another person who want's to learn about the world that YOU live in.. , just turn on the stupid TV for god's sake…Because I am interested in it doesn't mean I want to run out and kill as many people as I can in one minute with the best gun I can find……grow up

    I was military trained when I was young, but that doesn't mean I am a threat to society,….drugs, tobacco, alcohol, poor education, racism, fixed governments, ….these things are much more of a threat to ANY society.

  • another great list.

    i have had this conversation before, about what would have had happened if the chinese had the free & clear right to bear arms, what would have their country evolved into?

    i don't think that the communist party would have been able to take control of the country. but, you know, mao was a hell of a guy. i don't say that in a complimentary way, but i understand he was charismatic(i dislike this word strongly), and charisma will win over more intelligent choices.

    also, i do not think that guns alone would have kept the communists out of control, this is the country that pretty much normalized the usage of black powder.

  • Tom

    Gun deaths per 100,000 population (for the year indicated):

    Homicide Suicide Other (inc Accident)

    USA (2001) 3.98 5.92 0.36
    Italy (1997) 0.81 1.1 0.07
    Switzerland (1998) 0.50 5.8 0.10
    Canada (2002) 0.4 2.0 0.04
    Finland (2003) 0.35 4.45 0.10
    Australia (2001) 0.24 1.34 0.10
    France (2001) 0.21 3.4 0.49
    England/Wales (2002) 0.15 0.2 0.03
    Scotland (2002) 0.06 0.2 0.02
    Japan (2002) 0.02 0.04 0

    Data taken from Cukier and Sidel (2006) The Global Gun Epidemic. Praeger Security International. Westport.

    I think this table says a great deal

  • John Heeson

    I personally believe that some horrible bigots could get guns and just think about it : KKK killing Blacks everywhere,Taliban killing what they call ''infidels'',Nazis killing Gays and Jews,etc.
    I hope that one day we can live in a world without guns.

  • Ed Buckby

    Homicide Suicide Other (inc Accident)

    USA (2001) 3.98 5.92 0.36 Suicide: 17.7

    Italy (1997) 0.81 1.1 0.07 Suicide: 8.4

    Switzerland (1998) 0.50 5.8 0.10 Suicide: 21.8

    Canada (2002) 0.4 2.0 0.04 Suicide: 17.9

    Finland (2003) 0.35 4.45 0.10 Suicide: 27.3

    Australia (2001) 0.24 1.34 0.10 Suicide: 16.7

    France (2001) 0.21 3.4 0.49 Suicide: 25.5

    England/Wales (2002) 0.15 0.2 0.03 Suicide: 17.7

    Scotland (2002) 0.06 0.2 0.02 Suicide: 17.7

    Japan (2002) 0.02 0.04 0 Suicide: 35.8

    Let’s see what this tells us. As far as “violence” goes, Italy looks like a decent place to be. Very nice!

    The US, Canada, Australia, England, and Scotland have similar suicide rates i.e. about 17.7 out of 100,000 people.

    France is pretty high i.e. 25.5 people out of 100,000 off themselves. Finland is up there, too. Switzerland is 21.8 and, WOW, Japan is . . . 35.8?

    So, what’s this tell us? Since ALL of the suicide numbers are greater than gun deaths in total, even if you remove all the gun deaths as suicides, basically, you have a much better probability of getting killed by your own hands WITHOUT a gun than you are to be killed in any manner at all with a firearm.

    As far as a “global epidemic” goes, shouldn’t we be addressing suicide more more than simple gun ownership?

    Anton / 15 Nov, 2010 at 12:01 pm

    The most important part of your argument is “not as easily”. Without guns only those hellbent on murder actually goes through with the act, whilst with guns easily avaliable the act of killing becomes easier, making murderes out of those who would otherwise hesitate. With a gun you can easily unload into a mass of people, killing and hurting alot of people before someone reacts whilst without its hard to spew that kind of destrucion. And yes you may say that you could still build a bomb, but that requires time and skill to build, time for planning and an opportunity to plant and set of the bomb, combined not an easy task and a helluva lot harder than picking up a gun and unloading into the innocent.

    To Anton:

    What you’re saying is the great double-edged sword of an armed society i.e. a firearm makes it easier to kill people, both good and bad. You argue that guns make people into murderers where they might have hesitated otherwise. I’d argue back that a firearm is the difference between a 105 pound woman being a rape victim and a safer citizen.

    And as far as taking time and skill to build a bomb, you have a point . . . somewhat. Maybe 20 years ago, it was tougher to build an energetic weapon because the knowledge was not that easily had. With the internet, though, if one were SERIOUS about it, it’s not that hard, and it takes precious little skill.

    Pretty much, I don’t believe you can legislate “good”. The “good” just need to be armed well enough to make “bad” think twice. And “bad” can be the guy lurking in the dark, or the guy at City Hall or the Capitol building who doesn’t care about the law of the land.

  • Spade&Neuter

    where’s the browning automatic rifle?

  • ThuseDrerbles

    Name

  • akelz7

    10: Love it. I have killed many a virtual Nazi zombie with it.

    9: yes sir.

    8: meh.

    7: OH, HELL YEAH!

    6: ^

    5: Mouser is alright

    4: look to #6

    3: ^

    2: not #1?

    1: ah, makes sense.

    • Bart

      lol, hilarious

  • Dan

    I love guns.

  • Bart

    it’s a very good list, but i think the Thompson m1a1 should be there too

  • anonyomous

    Where is the M16 on your top ten list???!!!??? Really?

  • chris

    WHERE THE HELL IS THE AR-15 / M-16?

  • Chuck

    only one problem with this post… the mauser only holds 5 rounds not 8… and the right to bear arms should be a universal right to all people in my opinion… an unarmed person is a subject… and armed person is a citizen!

  • Your blog (Top 10 Greatest Firearms in History) won’t show up correctly on my iphone – you might wanna try and fix that :) Laith Carrillo

  • chely

    why are guns so cool.?

  • LWE

    This is a fairly good list, although I noticed one typo/mistake. You say Glocks come chambered in .40 Sig, which is a nonexistent calibre. You mixed .40 S&W and .357 SIG, to very different rounds. And it so happens Glock is chambered in both of those.

  • linda10989

    I’ve watched all of the “Dirty Harry” movies (but not for quite a while) and I knew that he had a .44 Magnum but the gun in the movies seemed to be a lot bigger than the one portrayed in this list picture. Or am I just imagining it?

    • Travis

      Same handgun but your correct Dirty Harry’s did have a longer barrel other then the length of the barrel the rest is the same. Most revolvers are offered is several barrel lengths. The shorter barrel are generally for carry/ self defense the longer barrel for accuracy used for targets and hunting. I have taken several deer with a .44 magnum myself only I used a Ruger.

  • Hey, this page is not being displayed properly when I take a look at it with my new iphone 3g. Perhaps you could try optimizing the website for cellphone users also.

  • vitali rostoff

    I used the Ak47 and it’s successor the AK74 in the army and without a doubt believe it should easily be listed as the greatest weapon man has ever created.

    The tales of it’s reliability are not exaggerated. The gun is staggeringly reliable. In the service we literally had drills firing the weapon under water, covered in mud, there was a AK that we used in firing practice that would then be taken down and fired.

    That’s right, we shot at the gun and it would still fire, bent and damaged it would still fire safely.

    The accuracy wasn’t near as good as the M-20 but the reliability put it light years ahead.

  • ponsereerge

    Name

  • Travis

    Ok first the mistake. Glock does not make a handgun in the .40 sig caliber as there is no such animal. The Glock can be had in .45acp .40S&W ( Smith & Wesson ) .357 sig ( Not a 357 mag but a .40S&W necked down to .357 a cartridge invented by Sig Arms ) 10mm and 9mm.

    It should be said that5 the Glock was not the first polymer handgun as is often stated.

    Then of course you left off the second most popular firearm in the world the m-16.

    A famous quote “You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass.” Often said to be from Isoroku Yamamoto but from what I gather there is no proof he ever said it. That said the premise of the statement is valid. Free men own firearms Slaves do not. It is has been and always will be harder for any government to hold power over a armed citizenry.

    • jake

      the glock is offered in a .380 acp caliber as well, though not widely availiable in the u.s.

  • qvor97

    i think that the AK-47 would be in 1st place

  • holz d

    I love how people keep stating that the US has the highest death by gun rate, but no one has looked at the numbers statistically. How would the death rates compare if you compared the US to a country with an equal population of armed persons? Wait – there is no equal country to compare the US with because the US is just too awesome!

    I will use my gun to protect my family and my land, from man or beast. Police ETA at my house is approximately 1.5 hours, my Mossberg = exponentially faster.

    Have fun swinging your katana’s & machetes, all you gun haters, when the zombie apocalypse comes…

  • Rv

    When seconds count, police are minutes away.

    The gun is the only weapon that will save you when a felon brakes through your door.

  • Peter

    I’m surprised that the AK-47 didn’t top the list.

  • F3n1x187

    I understand the right of bear fire arms to defend your family, but a belt fed machinegun? An assault rifle? Hell I’ve even seen posts with people having high caliber sniper rifles and a guy with a minigun attached to his truck, isn’t that a little over the edge???

  • Charles B.

    The fact is that its human nature to be violent. Humans have killed one another for centuries wether it be with stones, spears, swords, arrows or god forbid an “evil” gun. The fact is you cant eliminate guns regardless of what some legislation says, there are billions of untraceable guns throughout the world. Guns dont cause crime crimminals do…regardless of what type of weapon is used. If you want to stop all of the senseless deaths each year mabey you should ban sportscars, cigarettes, or fatty foods before turning to the “evil gun”. It’s easier for a politician to stand behind a podium flanked by policemen and speak about how guns aren’t neccesary in this modern world, than a single mother living in east L.A.

  • Chris Browne

    As a British Citizen and a self-proclaimed gun nut, I’d be first in line to vote Yes on any piece of legislation that would let me get my hands on a gun.

    The reasoning is simple, and has been echoed many thousands of times throughout firearms’ long legal history:
    “If you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns”

  • jake

    its funny how Americans defend guns and people who obviously aren’t american do not. i am american and i do own a few guns, and i think that if you were fortunate to not have your freedoms stripped away you would defend guns too.

  • Vila

    Interesting list, & interesting comments as well.
    The debate over firearm rights has long been a complex & heated one. I don’t believe that the arguments for either side can be reduced to simple terms. That is, in my opinion, a good thing. This issue requires much debate simply *because* it is complex & emotionally charged. A quoting of facts, statistics, & examples of evidence isn’t enough to get to the point where a decision of for or against can be safely made.
    For every example of responsible firearm ownership one side can quote, the other can produce an example of criminal misuse that is just as valid. For every example of the need for legal firearm ownership, a counterexample of how some situation could have had a better outcome if firearms weren’t involved. But when you get right down to it, human civilization was created by, and shall always be dependent upon, some sort of weapon. From stone knives & arrowheads to ICBMs, history is a straight progression of humans developing better technology with which to counter the aggressive attacks of other humans. As long as humans come in all the shades of good & evil, some sort of weapons will remain necessary. The good will always need to defend themselves against the evil, in other words.
    I’d like to posit a related question: Is fear the basis of the opinions against the ownership of firearms, & by extension against individual possession of any sort of weapon at all? A writer once stated that “there are two types of people who typically oppose the right to own firearms. The 1st are those people who secretly fear that they will be tempted to harm themselves if they had easy access to weapons. The 2nd are those who secretly fear that anyone who possesses a weapon cannot be dominated or enslaved to their will.” I disagree. Oh, the statement seems true enough, but yet doesn’t cover a 3rd type of person who fears that some day, somehow, someone with a weapon will attempt to dominate & enslave them, & the only sure defense is for there to cease to be any sort of weapons in existence at all. But the common factor seems to be fear. And any life built upon fear does not seem to me to be worth having.
    I’m sure that I’ve oversimplified & left out many other salient points. I’d be interested in hearing opinions from other people – as many as possible.
    Thank you for your time.

  • PrimeRib

    In response to your question:
    The right to bear arms is absolutely NOT a fundamental human right. As an American I appreciate it’s roots in the forming of our nation, it’s traditional value and it’s cultural effect on us. We have maintained the right since our nation’s inception and it is now part of our society. That having been said, if you were to suddenly arm everyone in non arms bearing nations, chaos would surely ensue. Culturally some nations would simply not be cut out for the responsibility that comes along with household gun ownership.

  • Dan

    All people must learn how to shoot a gun, regardless if they own one for self-defense or not. If you live in any EU country, you’ll know that military conscription was abolished, but more importantly, it is hard for your average Joe to get a hold of a gun to fire – yes, there are special ranges, but they are expensive and cartridges are even more so.

    If a war broke down, if some criminals decided to take hostages, if a wild animal somehow broke into a house (which actually happens surprisingly often, thankfully it’s not all brown bears and wolves :-) – people would have no way of defending themselves – worse, they wouldn’t know what to do even if they had weapons – most people don’t know how to use the iron sights, for God’s sake! And don’t say that the police and the small professional army are enough – when things get serious, the former are nowhere to be found and the latter are busy with more important stuff.

    Switzerland has the right idea – everyone is trained to fire weapons and has a service rifle stored in their home (although lately they don’t get the ammunition, wtf). The US is a gun lover’s best place in the world – you’ll never dream of shooting a Colt SAA freely in Europe. Thank God for the NRA, I suppose?

  • MRMESQ

    This is an old post, but I’m answering anyway. The thing with rights is that they are universal, inalienable, and not derived from government. Yes, firearms should be legal everywhere. While not an absolute check on government tyranny, they do help empower individuals in the realms of self-defense, sports, and also to give governments pause. Ask yourself if guns would have helped European Jews during the run up to the Holocaust. I’d say guns wouldn’t have hurt.

  • carlos

    I don’t have opinion about the situation in the USA or another countries, but in Spain, I don’t like the monopoly of armed force by the government. A citizen must be a citizen, not a subject.
    In Switerland or Finland, posession of firearms are almost as free as in the USA, but rate crimes are very low. Suicide is another question. Japan has this custom but as guns are almost forbidden, they don’t use them logically.
    As it were, I like small arms as I like antique cameras and so on, and there’s a big fault, perhaps mostly decorative than effective, but guns have that facet also. I refer to lhe German Luger P-08.
    And at last, I think international trade of small arms are the most important after drugs. Delinquents have all they want.

  • Parad0xfool

    Great list. Very interesting.

  • carlos

    ¡Oh! Many of the interventions against firearms are very reasonable. Too much. But human life, without some passion, I think is nothing; truly is as death by a shot or everything else. Without passion, you simply awake every morning as a zombie, take your breakfast as an idiot, go to your daily bad smelling task and work as a robot day after day. If you never love a woman although you know that can be fatal or some else, human life it’s a nonsense. I like firearms. Is this bad? I don’t know, but still I like them.

  • d

    why don’t all you american pricks who love gun’s and think there are not enough cops join them.

    • kyle

      1: because a cop cant shoot someone that breaks into our house unless they give probable cause, i can shoot him just for coming in the window 2: and unless every person in the united states joined the cops then there would really be no point in having them. 3: why just american pricks? i know plenty of canadian pricks, german pricks, mexican pricks, and they all love there guns just as much as the next red neck. 4: we don’t just have guns to shoot people when there isnt a cop also, shooting is a sport, and its fun. 5: your argument is invalid

    • NamePatrick

      Because, you idiot, some of us have greater talents working in medicine or technology etc. Second (and being a socialist you may not understand this) there actually have to be some private sector workers to support the fat public sector paychecks and pensions. The money that socialists steal has to come from somewhere. A##hole.

  • Terry110

    WE don’t need people who dont need guns…

    All people have a natural right to defend themselves from attack.

  • Kyle

    yes everyone should have the right to bear arms, and i take it the Iraqi thing was a terrorist reference, not all of them are terrorists, and most of the Iraqi people don’t want the terrorists there, what they are doing is actually against Islamic beliefs and im sure if all the Iraqis had guns, the terrorists wouldnt be as big of an issue because they would mostly all be shot by now.

  • tks

    what kinda shank is that next to the 1911 ?…. i waaahnt that

  • Tabish

    I live in Pakistan..specifically in the area where guns are kept in every house for personal protection, even for show offs, because the person with most guns is known as more powerful person..+ 5-6 years back killing was even not a big deal…people used to praise those families who had killers in their homes..now the ratio is slightly dropped but still fear factors remain the same..as far as your American question is ..everyone knows America is the biggest arms & ammo dealer and all the suppliers are related from America..there are always 2 faces of a picture…u use is for Ur protection in a society like mine or else be the one to be praised by others :)

  • Patrick

    God created all men equal; Sam Colt made it so. That epigram brings to the fore one of the great things about firearms: it makes the weak equal in lethality to stronger persons likely to aggress against them. Think of the social arrangements in which weapons (not only guns) were banned. European peasants were not permitted to own weapons. Why? Because if they were armed, they might be less inclined to tolerate the oppression of the knightly estate, which basically functioned as mafia goons for larger nobles. I’m talking about swords, shields, and spears here, not firearms. Oppressors always want their victims to be disarmed. Almost inevitably, I will remind you that Hitler started stringent gun control laws in 1935 and SURPRISE! Jews couldn’t defend themselves. Anyone who wants to take your weapon has something devious in mind.

  • Ursus Magnus

    Yeah, we do.

  • John

    I am genuinely surprised at the level of ignorance displayed by some of you. History shows that disarmament of the people leads to all sorts of nasty shenanigans by governments. How stupid can you really be?

    Ask the Mexican populace how well the ownership ban is working out for them right now. The cartels are mowing down helpless citizens daily. Those poor folks have no chance at all of defending themselves.

    Ownership is a right and a responsibility in America. If the rest of the world doesn’t approve, too flipping bad for them. Stay home…

  • JP

    I have fun shooting for sport. Why is that such a problem? I’m sick and tired of honest/responsible gun ownersbeing viewed as criminal or insane.

  • lunchbox

    I appreciate the idea of this article as much as the next guy does, but its author has got to be the most profound airhead to ever write an article on guns. I hope no one pays this guy to write this crap.

  • USMC Moon

    M-60, Springfield 1903, M-14, M-16, Barrett 50 cal.? Any good weapons that could have been in this…

    • Ed_Buckby

      I think the main thing about the article is how you define “great”. If you define it by “works great”, then the list gets screwy because lots of moderately famous and even unheard of firearms WORKED great. I think the definition here of “great” is world or history changing.

      That being the case, probably the only weapon you listed that sort of “changed things” is, oddly enough, the Barrett . . . and one COULD argue that all Barrett did was make a modern WW1 anti-tank rifle i.e. a big rifle shooting a big round. It didn’t really change tactics on a grand scale or world politics, but it HAS put more spotlight on the tactical use of snipers.

      You might could argue that the M-60 highlighted the advantages of having a squad level machine gun, but the problem with that is you could be putting the horse before the cart. Did the M-60 show the need for a squad automatic weapon OR was the M-60 built because the need was already recognized? I think it’s the latter really. There’s NOTHING against the M-60, of course. It can stand on its own record. I’m not sure it changed anything, though, per the definition of “great”. I’d argue the BAR was the “great” gun. The M-60 was just the natural improved evolution.

      The Springfield 1903 is a GREAT rifle, but it was a great bolt action rifle in a world full of bolt action rifles. What did it change? Eh, one could argue that REALLY, it never fought in any major conflicts compared to Enfield, Mauser, or Mosin. It did some minor US conflicts, the end of WW1, and it served some sniper duty in WW2, but compared to the other bolt actions of the day, it didn’t really change much of the world.

      The M-14, on paper, was sort of a failure. In semi-automatic, it was marginally better than the M1 Garand due to lighter recoil and ease of reloading. Fully automatic fire was uncontrollable FOR THE AVERAGE SOLDIER, so that “improvement” wasn’t much of an improvement. While it is a WONDERFUL piece and a credit to any collection, as a large scale issue rifle, it had major shortcomings. It’s finding new life as a “special issue” weapon now which is probably what it should have been all along. Of course, to me, if you call the M1 Garand one of the greatest (which you almost have to) firearms of all time, the M-14 is included as it is technically the “M1A1”. It’s a 7.62 NATO Garand, really.

      The M-16 is probably one of the most controversial weapons of all times as well as one of the most famous/infamous. It has changed LOTS of things in the world and is one of the most recognized rifles of all time. I think you have to be very elastic on what you term as “great” to include the M-16 here.

  • Ed is absolutely dead-on correct. Owning a gun is in the constitution. The 2nd amendment, The Right To Bear Arms !!!

  • justin

    first off, you are basing the this list oof of opinions. #1 should be HK416, not a stupid pistol compared to a freaking machine gun you moron. Second off, the ak47 is stiill second, but it isnt crappy. finally, it doesnt matter if there is a bad comment on america, these are the top ten guns in the WORLD, no matter the laws or freedom, stupids

  • xLuLzZzx

    Your “Guns are bad and should be outlawed.” stance is invalid, There are still people who know how to make them and there will ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS be a market for them ask Colombia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Venezuela, Cuba,Darfur, the DRC and so forth and see how many of them obtain those those AK-47s, Ar-15s, M16’s legally. Ive deployed to Afghanistan and I know for a fact there is no where in the world where you can buy anti aircraft guns legally and them use them as anti personal weapons (the sound of a Dishka(sp?) bouncing off the sound of your truck sucks). Hence why we have a 2nd amendment and laws so those who arent suppose to have gun are tried for it. I know in my state a convicted felon with a gun get an automatic 25 years with no chance of parole.

  • Just a quick note here. I lived in Honolulu, Hawai’i for 2 years and would frequent Waikiki Beach for swimming and people watching. I noticed a very long line of people waiting to get into this establishment. Almost everyone standing in line were Japanese tourists and I noticed that the establishment was an indoor firing range to shoot guns. I located a Japanese tourist who spoke English with a broken accent and asked him questions about why the line was so long. He replied that in Japan, it is illegal and outlawed to own a gun in Japan, hence the reason for the amazingly long line of Japanese people. It was my lesson for that day.

  • This list, like most other lists veers off the subject. Yes, the Second Amendment is the right to bear arms and speaks volumes. But instead of arguing about this particular issue, with its dangers as well as its protective purposes, why don’t we stick to the topic in hand. And that’s The Top 10 Greatest Firearms In History. I do not own a gun, but was required to fire some because I am a military veteran and if I did not follow orders to fire a deadly weapon, I would have been apprehended for insubordination. Like the history of Winchester repeating rifles or some other rare but effective gun.

  • steve rogers

    Peoplw who say we don’t need guns are hippies who have never shot a gun in thier life. If we don’t have guns, how the hell are we supposed to get food? I myself like deer and other animal and I sure as hell ain’t hunting a huge as moose with a stick and a knife,and a bow is the medevil version of the gun so….

    • RedWolf

      I absolutely agree with you, Steve. I mean, I live in Britain, I don’t own a gun, I’m a 15 year old girl, but I have fired a gun (legally, by the way). Guns are neccassary for a number of things and, like it or not, they’re everywhere.
      GET OVER IT HIPPIES!!! \/OoO\/ <this weird thing represents the V sign. And not the one that means "peace". It's the one that means f*@! off.

  • RedWolf

    I am utterly outraged (exaggerating is my favourite hobby!) that the Welrod, AKA assasin’s pistol, was not mentioned on this list. Anyone who’s ever heard of it will know why. It’s a bolt action, magazine fed, suppressed pistol, invented by the British for use by irregular forces and resistance groups. It is, in my opinion, the ultimate spy gun.

  • Richard99

    Bear in mind that the US constitutional has been there since the time of the wild west (which USA was). It is there for a reason needed at that time. You cannot compare crime/homicide by gun statistic of your country ’cause US is one of the most populous country in the world. Just be smart and wise about it. It still a civilized and developed country.

  • Guy Montag

    Self Defense is an unalienable right, and for ppl who say it was only for when we didn’t have an army back then to protect us, your argument is invalid german jews in 30s and 40s had an army that was supposed to protect them look what happened.

    The forefathers knew you should be able to defend yourself from insane governments like the british at the time.

    One last note read Unintended Consequences by John Ross

  • Arnold

    Where’s the minigun?

  • Molly

    You are right – It IS people who kill rather than the instrument of choice – However, the idea of someone designing and creating these killing machines turns my stomach. Guns are an instrument of torture. How can any person feel comfortable carrying such a thing? A person is far more likely to be shot dead when armed themselves. If England legalised weaponry to the extent as in America, I would move.

    • Ed Buckby

      Molly, firearms aren’t an instrument of torture, per se. They’re a weapon that can be used to protect you or your children from animals of all species. Firearms are a lot like lawyers: no one wants them around until they need one, and when you need one, there’s no substitute for having a good one.

      I can understand you being fearful of a society where almost anyone can go and buy a firearm. What that tells me is that, deep down, you don’t trust people because you don’t want everyone to be a threat. Fair enough. The only problem with prohibiting firearms from the lawful is that you only do JUST THAT . . . prohibit them from the lawful. What you end up with is a large group of “good” people who are basically helpless along with a small group of criminals who may operate as they please. Criminals don’t, by nature, follow the law so prohibitions on firearms ownership is rather pointless if you want to control criminals.

      I’m assuming you’re a woman given your name. If you hear a kick at your door one night, what are your options? You basically have the option of fight or flight. Would you be able to fight 2 or 3 bigger men who have intentions on stealing whatever you have . . . or worse? With a firearm, you have a MUCH better chance of survival. Also, when the criminals KNOW you have a good chance of being armed, they tend to move along to greener pastures.

      As to the old wive’s tale of “you’re more likely to be shot with your own gun”, well, that’s a myth that’s been debunked (in the United States) so often that even our anti-gun groups don’t even say it, anymore. While it SOUNDS wonderful to an anti-gunner, it’s not true. Firearms legally protect people successfully every day.

      Guns don’t make people bad. They allow bad people to do what they will. Firearms in the hands of good people deter the bad people from operating as they will. An armed SOCIETY prevents a government from doing whatever it wants, as well. In all honesty, that’s what the US Founding Fathers had in mind. They weren’t so much worried about the thief in the night as much as a government out of control. So far, so good.

      • Molly

        Hi Ed,
        When I referred to a gun being used as an instrument of torture, I was referring to when it is used to bring fear rather than to be employed.

        As for your response, I must say whilst we are very much not in agreement – I appreciate your detailed and lengthy answer which was eloquently done. Too often, I find people far too easily spouting negative rubbish to one another, like a game of Ping Pong. Ie. I’m right – you are wrong so shall insult you and condemn your family to die of cancer etc etc…..

        I don’t think we’ll ever agree, but I have respect for you my friend. So thank you for your response and for your very much appreciated polite reply.

        • Ed Buckby

          No problem, Molly. It’s a touchy subject.

          I agree with you that weapons of any kind can be used to instill fear. That’s possibly their best use because it works on the good and bad alike. A weapon can be used to rob an elderly person. A weapon can also be used by an elderly person to ward off such attempts. Criminals aren’t generally looking for a challenge or to make money the hard way. If so, they probably wouldn’t be criminals.

          There are some fallacies that many people adopt as truth with regards to safety or weapons. One is that if we get rid of weapons, no one will get hurt. That’s not true. What it means is that the strong will rule over the weak. If you’re born 300 pounds and 6’5”, you’re probably in favor of this system. Most women and children probably will hate it. Weapons don’t make people violent. They help people be violent more effectively. Violence is used by both the good and bad.

          Another fallacy is “I don’t feel I need a weapon, and therefore no one else needs one”. I never needed a lawyer nor did I see much use for one for 35 years of my life. Thirty seconds after I got handed some papers at work, getting a great one suddenly became the most important thing in my life. LOL! The same goes for a weapon. You may NEVER have a use for one, BUT, when you DO need one, you NEED one NOW! An additional facet of this argument is that you may NOT need a weapon if you are around people WITH weapons. My mother never worried about carrying a firearm (although she was a crack shot) because typically I was carrying one as were most of my friends (and my wife, who is a crack shot!). An armed society is typically safer because criminals are always taking the chance that if their victim doesn’t have a weapon, they could also be thwarted by someone nearby.

          I think the reason so many people get mad at the argument is that all anger spawns from fear. There are fears on both sides. People who don’t like weapons are in fear that if more people have weapons, they’ll be attacked. People WITH weapons don’t want theirs taken away because they fear they’ll be weak enough to attack. What’s COMICAL is that the first group’s argument relies on the fact that people are bad by nature i.e. “arm more people, and they’ll start attacking”. The people who want to keep weapons available are betting on the better nature of man i.e. “if we arm people, the good people outnumber the bad and be a deterrent.” Ironic, no? As a rule, neither side is bad. The people I fear most is the people WITH weapons who don’t want anyone ELSE to have weapons. Fear them.

          I’m glad you appreciate the civility. I appreciate yours, as well. I hope you never need a weapon, honestly, and I hope you live a long life holding onto your belief happily. That being said, I hope I never need a weapon (again), and die happily in my sleep. I’ll be leaving my firearms to my kids and grandkids, though. :)

      • neurogenic

        Exactly, wether we like it or not guns do exist and bad people use them to do bad things, but good people use them to defend. Why should all the power be taken out the the good’s hands to defend themselves and their loved ones and given all to the bad? Because I guranantee they will find away to get guns or any other types of weapons to use.

        Most people can saftely own and operate firearms, thats not to say some unfortunate incidents might happen. (ussually because someone failed to do things safetly) But, you dont take the power of self-defense out of the hands of the masses because a few people acted irresponsively.

    • MorganGray

      Molly, I carry every day. I am perfectly comfortable having a Colt 1911 on my hip. In fact, I am far *more* comfortable with it, than without it.
      There are a ton of cliches regarding firearms – on both sides of the issue. But the simple fact is, a firearm in the hands of a well-trained, competent citizen is a great equalizer. I do not fear the thug in the darkness, nor the politician in his office. As long as I am capable of defending myself, or protecting those who cannot protect themselves, I am perfectly comfortable.
      That said, if you don’t feel comfortable owning or carrying a firearm. That is your choice. If push-comes-to-shove, I will use mine to defend you, should the situation arise.
      But, if the situation should arise where one of the “all guns are evil, people should be disarmed” types are in need of my defending them with my firearm, I might think twice. I mean I shouldn’t push my beliefs onto them, should I? They wouldn’t want an evil gun to be used to protect their life, or the lives of their loved ones, would they?
      Sarcasm aside – yes, I’d even use my weapon to defend Sarah Brady and her disarm-the-people ilk. They can thank me or condemn me later, because they’d be alive to do so.

    • zazinombies

      if a robber come up to you with a gun or anything else like a knife you with no gun are helpless with one you can defend yourself thats why dumbass

      • Molly,

        Guns were devolped to penetrate improving armour and also they require little training to be effective in defense. With that being said, there are sheep, wolves and sheep dogs….In this day and age the number of wolves is growing. We need our sheep dogs, and they need to be armed better than the wolves. For those of us who are warriors, they are a tool, we hope not to have to use them but we are trained well in their use. Take Care and Hope this helps

  • fionntanw

    Technically its an AK-47 Kalashnikov weighing 5.21kg and a length of 870 mm firing 7.62 mm rounds

  • obieramkar

    Name

  • Vk14

    Just imagine being a criminal. Would you want to commit crimes in an area where everyone legally has a gun?

  • Warrior

    the ak47 is by far the best it is responsible for more kills than any other gun in history and since it was made not a single war was fought without it and what about the tommy gun one of the first rapid fire guns and what about the mp5 the best sub machine gun ever the sas can not phisically replace it as it is so good

  • Gun Nut

    Almost every description is *way* off.
    //which is sufficient to cut a man in half
    False, not even remotely true.
    //The Glock is the ultimate in modern reliability
    False, the Glock is the _standard_ for a reliable pistol, because it’s the standard in almost every field. What is truly revolutionary in this gun is its polymer frame and ‘safe action’
    //a 10 round magazine, compared to 8
    The Mauser has a 5 round internal mag, not 8 round. Besides the SMLE and K98k are not even remotely related.
    //The rifle is accurate to 1,000 yards with open sights
    Accuracy is not affected by the sights, usability is. Btw, it’s accurate to around 500 yards and with open sights usable to around 3-400y.
    //the most awe-inspiring shoulder-fired cartridge to date
    One answer: 14.5x114mm
    //1,200 rounds per minute
    More like 500 RPM.
    //Special Sabot rounds can go clean through tanks.
    That’s something even a 30x173mm armour piercing depleted uranium shell won’t do. Keep on dreaming.
    //Its caliber was sufficient to flip a charging man backward off his feet.
    Not even the 50 BMG has so much momentum. The author obviously watched too many movies.
    //568 foot-pounds of stopping power, more than enough to put a man down
    ‘Stopping power’ has nothing to do with energy or momentum.
    //Every bit as rugged and reliable as the AK-47
    The 1911 is known for many things, like it’s good accuracy, quality of finish and great ergonomics. Being reliable isn’t one of them though. Because of it’s very precise finish with a lot of pins and moving parts, it tends to jam when exposed to dirt, mud and sand. It was one of it’s few shortcomings.

    Overall a very badly written piece, by someone who has not the slightest clue about these mentioned firearms.

  • J.Gray

    m1 garand?

  • david

    Pour sand down the barrel? Yes it will fire…and promptly be reduced to junk. This article is full of either misinformation and or ignorance

  • @ david. Pouring sand down the barrel of a Glock 9mm and be reduced to junk ?? Not according to my older brother, a 20+ year veteran Senior Chief Petty Officer of the US NAVY whose rating was Anti-Submarine Warfare and flew on PC-3 Orions and was a sharp shooter in the NAVY. He said you can run over a Glock 9 mm handgun (which is what I believe that you are referring to) with a Sherman Tank and do anything you want to it to permanently damage it, and it will still fire. In his 20+ years, he never saw a Glock 9 mm ever fail to perform. Why do you think policeman carry them at all times ??

    • Ed Buckby

      I think the confusion in the “sand” reference stems from one of the stress tests used for firearm evaluation. It involves burying the weapon in sand for some x period of time, then digging the weapon up, SHAKING IT OUT, and then test fire the weapon. Depending upon the testing criteria, the weapon is either loaded or unloaded during the test.

      Glocks have passed this test both for the US military and other countries with no significant issue. What’s left out is the “shaken out” part. It’s highly unlikely (bordering on impossible) for almost any conventional firearm to fire with the barrel full of sand or almost any other foreign material. Glocks DO perform once shaken out by hand. Granted, there is plenty of sand left all over the weapon including the mechanism and probably some in the barrel. On the other hand, the weapon’s barrel is not full of sand.

      Glock isn’t the only weapon to pass this test.

      A test Glock DOES do particularly well is firing in extremely cold conditions. Many weapons will either freeze up (lubricants) or will lose enough mechanical tolerances to cause inoperation. Glocks have a significantly positive history and reputation for cold firing.

  • @ Ed Buckby. Thank You for straighten me out on the Glock and never would it have crossed my mind about the elements of subfreezing temperature and still firing. Now you have me thinking as to conventional warfare during WWII and the Germans raiding the Russians where the temperatures would go down to -40 to -50 degrees and how their rifles and guns would operate or any hand held weapon during that time. Thanks again, I have learned something new today !

    • Ed Buckby

      No problem! I’ve actually read reports from Eastern Front action where there would be a long exchange of gunfire where the weapon and soldier would get hot or sweatty, and then when the action was over, gloves or even hands would freeze to their weapon.

      Glock has got a solid lubricant that doesn’t freeze for such cold weather work. Duck hunters, for years, have fought similar problems.

  • shirija

    The responsibility does belong to the posessor, but having someone wishing to kill you with a weapon is more dangerous than someone without a weapon. If someone comes at me with a knife, I might be able to run for it, or if appropriate, grab the nearest solid object and fight it out. Against a gun there’s very little recourse. Gun also do not protect oneself against other guns, because the first person to shoot has much greater odds of being the victor.

    • Ed Buckby

      The responsibility does belong to the posessor, but having someone wishing to kill you with a weapon is more dangerous than someone without a weapon. If someone comes at me with a knife, I might be able to run for it, or if appropriate, grab the nearest solid object and fight it out. Against a gun there’s very little recourse. Gun also do not protect oneself against other guns, because the first person to shoot has much greater odds of being the victor.

      Someone who TRULY wishes to kill you is dangerous regardless of what weapons are legal or not. For someone who wishes to commit murder, the threat of a firearms charge on top of a murder charge isn’t much of a deterrent. In the US where getting a firearm is relatively easy, strangulation, poisoning, and stabbing are still used rather frequently. Anyone who truly wishes you dead and has little or no regard for their own safety is most likely going to be successful. They have a higher rate of success if their target has no access to effective protection. If you and I are alone in a room, unarmed, and I want you dead, shoelaces make a wonderful weapon.

      As for your assertion that guns are no protection against guns, I offer up almost any armed conflict since the implementation of gunpowder. Anyone who shot BACK at their opponent and hit them refutes your assertion. I would also offer up a couple of hundred years of pistol dueling as evidence, as well. Many times one participant rushed a shot and missed while the other aimed more carefully and came out alive. Also, if ANY pistol duel went more than one round, obviously there wasn’t that big of an advantage to shooting first.

      Short of explosives, firearms ARE the best defense against other firearms. More importantly they are a deterrent against gun crime. Criminals typically don’t want a challenge or danger. If they were that ambitious or daring, odds are they either wouldn’t be criminals, or they wouldn’t be street criminals. A thug with a knife or even a gun most likely is going to shy away from targets that they either know or strongly suspect are armed and, even worse, trained. For example, the local city near me many years ago had a rash of carjackings, and in many cases, the people were beaten, stabbed, and a few shot. We changed the law to state that carjacking in any form can be considered a lethal threat, and therefore lethal force in defense was legal. Three or four dead carjackers later, and the criminals went back to stealing empty cars. Criminals don’t respect the law, but they DO fear for their lives. Sometimes you must speak in their language.

      I understand the point you’re making i.e. a gun makes killing someone easier. That works both ways i.e. offense and defense. What you might overlook is that it also allows for a weaker person to defend themselves. You say if someone has a knife you might be able to run and find an improvised weapon. Fine enough. Let’s say the thug misses you, you grab a rock, and face your opponent. He’s 6’6” and 300 pounds. You’re female, 105 pounds, and 63 years old. Would you rather have that rock or would you rather have a firearm that you’ve been shooting for years? Firearms, better than any other tool, equalize physical traits in a fight.

  • pozcyseo

    Name

  • Kyle

    In response to the question at the end of the list and certain comments I’ve skimmed through below:

    It’s important to recognize the checks and balances that the founding fathers of the United States built into the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights. We often think of the Commander in Chief, Congress, and the judicial system balancing each other, but the Nation’s population is also included in this balance.

    In the Declaration of Independence, we read, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”

    Important parts to note are “all men created equal… with certain unalienable Rights” and “whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it”.

    Imagine a scenario in which the People would desire to abolish the current government and build it anew. What kind of schism would have to form between the Government and the People? Who would have power? Who would have money, land, or other resources? Who would have means of self defense, or means of going on offense?

    In imagining such a scenario, it becomes clear that it’s very likely the only way the People might take advantage over and abolish the Government is by having a well-armed militia separate from any Government military force. Regulation of a Militia must not be excessive, and must not interfere with the purposes of the Militia.

    This is evidenced in the wording used in the Second Amendment: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

    Notice that it reads “being necessary to the security of a free State.” Threats may come from anywhere, and it’s important to remember that the much of the contents of the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights came as a result of the American Colonies struggles against Great Britain.

    Short answer to the question: The principles the United States were founded on are universal. A population’s right to keep and bear arms is essential in its ability to gain and preserve its own freedom.

  • Michael

    I’ve owned guns for years, most of my family has, not a single one of us has ever accidentally shot anyone. I’ve never purposely shot anyone, nor even pulled a gun on someone, never been given a reason to. The simple fact is I live in a major US city (Nashville) and feel perfectly safe walking down the street or sitting in my home, of 3 pistols, 4 rifles and a shotgun, not a single one is loaded because they have no need to be.
    The only time I carry a loaded gun on my person is when I’m walking through wilderness areas or pleasure shooting at a safe location. I have my guns because I like the guns, some guns are beautiful guns, to me and others. They are nice to have around. Some have personal significance, my shotgun was owned by my grandfather who has since passed. Some are tools, I hunt with one of my rifles.
    I do believe all people should have a right to bear arms, as has been said, the people you don’t want to have a gun, will have a gun regardless, having firearms widely available doesn’t instantly turn the populace bad. The great thing about it being a right, is that you are allowed to excercise rights, you can decline them if you so choose, nobody is forced to buy a gun in America just because you have the right to.
    There seems to be this misconception amongst the non Americans posting that the law abiding citizens of America live in constant fear and thats why they own guns, I would say that for 95% of American gun owners, that is not the case.

    Also, to the gentleman claiming to have a AR15 with a loaded 30rd magazine sitting by his bed, thats hard on the magazine and you’d better hope you live alone on several hundred acres should you need that. That’s simply a terrible choice for close in protection and likely to easily go through walls possibly hurting someone unintentionally

  • Brett

    A few questions about statistics if someone could please answer with actual facts it would be appreciated.
    1) The US has the highest number of gun related deaths of any country in the world annually, right?
    2) Now what is the number PER CAPITA? A more accurate statistic to compare to every other nation considering the 300,000,000 to 350,000,000 or so people estimating?
    3) Out of that number break it down into, how many were accidents? How many were of criminals attacking innocent people? How many were of criminals fighting it out with each other?
    4) And the most important question never asked is, How many of those deaths were criminals being shot by law abiding citizens protecting themselves from home invasions muggings assault of all forms and protecting fellow law abiding citizens in similar situations?
    I don’t want to imply that those are “good deaths” taking a life in anyway is terrible thing, righting a wrong with a death makes no sense and sometimes is done to stop a wrong.
    Adding those deaths to the total number in my opinion skewers the statistics. They are better shown as victim deaths and criminal deaths in self defense. Excluding criminal on criminal deaths from those numbers into their own category. Again that statistic is still a terrible thing.
    And one more question if anyone has a real statistic for this one I’ll be very surprised but please post if you do. How many crimes are prevented each year by deterrence? Ie. A criminal planning to invade a home assault someone or do any other violent crime deterred by the presence of told of the presence of a firearm. I would love to see some real numbers on that one.
    Please don’t post links I without the info posted first I really don’t need to be reading every article searching for info on my own.
    As of yet I have not said my opinion on gun either way, I will wait for a few responses before I post my opinion on whole right to bear arms question. Just to make sure my bias doesn’t sway anyone’s answers. Again please post all info. Thank you everyone.

  • fallenDstar

    In south africa you can iligally(and very easily) buy an ak-47 for R500(66USDollars) or less. In a country where there is a average of one rape every 10seconds ,and furtermore one of the higest rates of murder in the world what do you think would happen to the law abiding citizens if they were not allowed to own guns at all.

  • Rema

    Wait wait wait what about the Tommy Gun?!